History UsefulNotes / BritainVersusTheUK

Some from the [[UsefulNotes/CelticKingdoms 'Celtic fringe']] of the UK might have different views on identifying as 'British'. Many of those from [[OopNorth the North of England]] like to insist they weren't actually ''conquered'' by the Romans, so can sometimes be bracketed with the Celts in this respect, and because large swaths of the North remained unconquered and Celtic for many centuries thereafter, they may well choose to say they are British even more because of this fact, and reject being called/identifying as English (like the Cornish) - still, some instead invoke this history to reject being British, instead identifying as English, though they are likely from the parts of the North that were conquered by the Angles if not the Romans, like Northumbria and the East of Yorkshire. The North of England is confusing in itself. If you refer to a Scot or a Welshman as "British", the vast majority will just accept this, although the more nationalist may insist on a local term – and although on a kind of cultural level this may be correct depending on your point of view, from a strict legal perspective, this is wrong, as Scottish and Welsh people are all British citizens, as are the vast majority of Northern Irish.[[note]]Northern Irish people are automatically citizens of the UK upon birth, but are entitled to citizenship in the Republic of Ireland, and some Nationalists might renounce British citizenship and take up exclusive ROI citizenship, hence "mostly." Because of the special relationship between the ROI and UK and their common membership in the EU, this switch is (or was) almost entirely symbolic, as going from one to the other does not deprive you of any rights or grant any particularly significant new ones, other than no longer being subject to the (highly unlikely) conscription and some subtle differences in random foreign countries' visa policies. Things got a lot more complicated when "Brexit" came up though, because, among other things, residents of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens are still entitled to representation in the European parliament, but Northern Ireland will lose its [=MEPs=]. How exactly Westminster plans on solving that is, as of this writing, still unknown.[[/note]] Whatever happens, "British" is right, and "English" is ''not''. Apart from being separated by borders, this is (as touched upon above) because the Scottish Highlanders and Strathclyde and the Welsh, plus the Irish, Manx (of the Isle of Man), Cornish and extended Cumbric can trace their heritage back to the Celts who inhabited these isles since before the Romans, let alone the 'English', came[[note]](this can be a controversial view: Oppenheimer argues that Germanic people have also been here since pre-Roman times)[[/note]] – whereas the 'English' descend mainly from the consecutive Germanic and Norman ([[CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkeys read: stinkin' French]]) conquests, and can be, and sometimes are, still viewed as "outsiders" and "invaders" by more radical nationalists in Wales or Scotland. Hence ''Sassenach'', Gaelic for "Saxon" and a derogatory Scottish word for English person.[[note]]It cuts both ways – the ancient Brythonic word from which ''Cymru'', the Welsh for "Wales", derived, meant 'friend'; the English term ''Wales'', though, derived from a word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy'![[/note]] Those of Celtic land now in England (Cornwall, Cumbria, the West Riding) may have a more reasonable chip on their shoulder because of the actual invading that happened to take the land, but also have nationalist ties both ways and so are less likely to be violent. Strathclyde, though in south-west Scotland, often gets lumped with these areas. Lowland Scottish culture is mainly of Germanic origin (south-east Scotland has been Germanic as long as England has), and the dialect, [[UsefulNotes/ScottishEnglish Scots]], is from English – unlike Gaelic, which used to be the Highland language, and is still spoken in a few areas. Also, the far north of Scotland (Orkney, Shetland and part of Caithness) has a more Scandinavian heritage – it was, after all, closer for the Vikings to reach – and though its language, Norn, died out in the 19th century, some Orcadians and Shetlanders still insist they are not Scottish.\\

Generally speaking, the English pay little attention to the more overt manifestations of Scottish nationalism. The Scots might refer to England as “The Auld Enemy” but to the English, “The Old Enemy” is, and has long been (despite Two World Wars And One World Cup™] France and the French.

Generally speaking, the English pay little attention to the more overt manifestations of Scottish nationalism. The Scots might refer to England as “The Auld Enemy” but to the English, “The Old Enemy” is, and has long been (despite Two World Wars And One World CupTM ] France and the French.

There ''was'' once a nation-state of just Great Britain, but not for over 200 years now; there has been no nation-state called England for over 300. The United Kingdom as it exists in modern times is a compound of four member countries. Yet it is a matter of much frustration to many of their residents – in particular those from the nation's smaller constituent countries, but to English people too – that the terms "Britain", "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" remain not only often synonymous with each other but, most annoyingly, with "England" in the minds of foreigners (and many ignorant natives...). The distinctions between all these frequently overlapping and vaguely similar-sounding names can be lost on many people, meaning the different terms are frequently used interchangeably, but the political and cultural structure of the kingdom is rather more complicated than that.

Oh yes, the national sporting situation is predictably complicated. Demonstrating the density of this whole naming confusion, the UK's Olympic team competes under the name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but its International Olympic Committee country code is just GBR, and it is routinely referred to as merely "Team GB" – just the sort of reductive continuum that helps perpetuate the whole confusion that necessitates this page. In UsefulNotes/{{cricket}} the 'England' team technically represent England and Wales, while there is for instance a separate Ireland team that nonetheless sees not infrequent shifts of player loyalties to England (which is objectively a much better side, owing to the greater enthusiasm and thus funding and resources for cricket in England). In UsefulNotes/AssociationFootball meanwhile, the 'Home Nations' of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and the Republic of Ireland – play as separate teams. In the sports of rugby union and rugby league, the various Irish issues are cut admirably straight through: a single unified Ireland team represents the whole island, featuring players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic; in addition, a super-unified British and Irish Lions rugby union team assembles every four years, [[Film/AvengersAssemble Avengers-style]], to tour the countries of the sport's Southern Hemisphere superpowers[[note]], rotating between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa[[/note]]. In the likes of tennis (for Davis Cup etc.) and – as noted – the UsefulNotes/OlympicGames there is a combined British (i.e. UK) team.

* '''Northern Ireland''' (a ''political'' term) takes up, as the name implies, (part of) the northeast of Ireland. It is often referred to as Ulster, though this can be politically sensitive as not all of the old Irish province of that name is actually inside Northern Ireland (although all of Northern Ireland is part of historic Ulster, three of Ulster's nine historic counties are in the Republic).[[note]]To wit, Counties Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal are in the Republic, while Counties Antrim, (London)Derry, Down, Armagh, Tyrone, and Fermanagh are in NI and thus the UK.[[/note]] The people of Northern Ireland are divided about 60/40 between Unionists, mainly Protestant, who feel they are Brits;[[note]]although the proportion of Unionists has started to decline rapidly in the last few years[[/note]] and Nationalists, mainly Catholic, who feel they are Irish, and currently the ruling coalition mandatorily incorporates parts of both sides. Anyone born in NI can choose to have British, Irish, or dual citizenship since the Good Friday Agreement to stop everyone [[UsefulNotes/TheTroubles killing each other]]. [[note]]Northern Irish athletes with dual citizenship can elect to represent either the UK or the Republic of Ireland at the UsefulNotes/OlympicGames, for example.[[/note]]

Two of these conflicting methodologies clash, and cause a particular problem, for association football (soccer) at the Olympics. The UK has traditionally not entered the football tournament, for fear that fielding a unified British team would be regarded as 'setting a precedent' that could lead to the four individual nations losing their right to have separate teams the rest of the time. The fear is so bad that, when it was decided to enter a "Team GB" football side (for the first time in decades) for their 'home' Olympics at the London 2012 Games, the Scottish, Welsh and [Northern] Irish Football Associations were united in support of entering an all-English team.[[note]](In the end five Welshmen were in the men's squad alongside 13 Englishmen, while the women's squad featured 17 Englishwomen and two Scots.)[[/note]] On the other hand, the fielding of a unified British team for rugby union, which will return to the Olympics in 2016 in the cut-down 'sevens' format[[note]](seven players a side, playing on a standard-sized field, with 7-minute halves)[[/note]], was no problem for the International Rugby Board – the IRB endorsed the concept of a combined British Olympic sevens team back in 2011. Why the football associations can't similarly just ask international federation FIFA for a signed note saying "It's not now, and will never be, a problem with us either" is beyond comprehension (It may be because, among sports fans as a whole, FIFA is seen as a lot more corrupt and generally dishonorable than the just plain incompetent IRB and thus more likely to renege on such a deal).

To call someone "Great British" is practically unknown. The only context in which a collective term for the three GB countries is really necessary is Northern Ireland, where Great Britons are often called "Mainlanders".

* '''The Republic of Ireland''' (a ''political'' term) takes up the majority of the island of Ireland and is a separate country from Northern Ireland. It is no longer part of the UK, which has caused what might charitably be called [[UsefulNotes/TheIrishQuestion "a spot of bother"]] [[UsefulNotes/TheTroubles or two]] in the past. "Ireland", confusing though this is, is the correct official name of the country, though 'Republic of Ireland' (with a capital R, sometimes abbreviated ROI) is frequently used to differentiate the state from the island. Use of the term "Éire" (Irish for "Ireland") should be avoided unless you are conversing in Irish. Its use in English is generally regarded as a holdover from the British government of the day's refusal to acknowledge the official name as "Ireland".

If something is English, it is British; but the reverse is not always true: if something is British, ''it is not necessarily English''. So, if you refer to someone from England as being "British", you are correct – but don't make the mistake of thinking everything about the English is therefore representative of the British as a whole (see YouFailLogicForever).

Some people from UsefulNotes/{{Cornwall}}, the south-west tip of England, with its own distinct Celtic heritage, do not identify as "English", preferring "Cornish". Tread carefully.

Many from the 'Celtic fringe' of the UK in general won't identify as 'British', possibly because they weren't part of the Roman Britannia and tradition has stuck. (Whilst those from the North of England like to insist they weren't actually ''conquered'' by the Romans, so can sometimes be bracketed with the Celts in this respect, they may equally well choose to say they are British even more because of this fact.) If you refer to a Scot or a Welshman as "British", the vast majority will just accept this, although the more nationalist may insist on a local term – and although on a kind of cultural level this may be correct depending on your point of view, from a strict legal perspective, this is wrong, as Scottish and Welsh people are all British citizens, as are the vast majority of Northern Irish.[[note]]Northern Irish people are automatically citizens of the UK upon birth, but are entitled to citizenship in the Republic of Ireland, and some Nationalists might renounce British citizenship and take up exclusive ROI citizenship, hence "mostly." Because of the special relationship between the ROI and UK and their common membership in the EU, this switch is (or was) almost entirely symbolic, as going from one to the other does not deprive you of any rights or grant any particularly significant new ones, other than no longer being subject to the (highly unlikely) conscription and some subtle differences in random foreign countries' visa policies. Things got a lot more complicated when "Brexit" came up though, because among other things, residents of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens are still entitled to representation in the European parliament, but Northern Ireland will lose its [=MEPs=]. How exactly Westminster plans on solving that is, as of this writing, still unknown.[[/note]] Whatever happens, "British" is right, and "English" is ''not''. Apart from being separated by borders, this is (as touched upon above) because the Scottish Highlanders and the Welsh, plus the Irish, Manx (of the Isle of Man) and Cornish can trace their heritage back to the Celts who inhabited these isles since before the Romans, let alone the 'English', came[[note]](this can be a controversial view: Oppenheimer argues that Germanic people have also been here since pre-Roman times)[[/note]] – whereas the 'native' English descend mainly from the consecutive Germanic and Norman ([[CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkeys read: stinkin' French]]) conquests, and can be, and sometimes are, still viewed as "outsiders" and "invaders" by more radical nationalists in Wales or Scotland. Hence ''Sassenach'', Gaelic for "Saxon" and a derogatory Scottish word for English person.[[note]]It cuts both ways – the ancient Brythonic word from which ''Cymru'', the Welsh for "Wales", derived, meant 'friend'; the English term ''Wales'', though, derived from a word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy'![[/note]] Lowland Scottish culture is also mainly of Germanic origin (south-east Scotland has been Germanic as long as England has), and the dialect, [[UsefulNotes/ScottishEnglish Scots]], is of English – unlike Gaelic, which used to be the Highland language, and is still spoken in a few areas. Also, the far north of Scotland (Orkney, Shetland and part of Caithness) has a more Scandinavian heritage – it was, after all, closer for the Vikings to reach – and though its language, Norn, died out in the 19th century, some Orcadians and Shetlanders still insist they are not Scottish.\\

If you refer to someone from The Republic of Ireland as British... well, don't. Just don't. Aside from being demographically incorrect, as the ROI does not have anywhere near the concentration of British-descended persons in its population as Northern Ireland does, it's mainly because... well... it's a completely different country, it's considered impolite. At best.[[note]]Think of it like calling a Canadian "American", or vice versa, although considering the history it is more similar to calling a Polish person "German".[[/note]] Using "English" is no better, for the reasons above re: Scots and Welsh people. Many Irish people, and the Irish government, object to the geographic term "The British Isles" as well, seeing it as implies Ireland is politically "British" (i.e. part of the UK), and prefer either "The British and Irish Isles" or just avoiding the phrase altogether.[[note]]And on a historical note, it's also misleading - the Irish, historically, are not "Britons", in any sense. They're not descended from the aforementioned Welsh (Brythonic) Celts at all, but Goidelic (Gaelic) Celts, a different branch of the language/culture family.[[/note]]

Just watch out for the Scots. They long have a reputation as being 'the hard lot from up north.' Some of them are nationalists and will not tolerate one step out of line, saying it arises from the Union, which is the root of all evil. Some are unionists... who will not tolerate a step out of line, because it undermines the Union and drives people into the arms of the Nats. Some of them, we shan't name any names, have a reaction resembling an enraged [[Series/DoctorWho Dalek]]: [[Series/DoctorWho DO-NOT-BLAS-PHEME!]]

Let's not even get started on the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question "West Lothian question"]]: the idea that a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish member (MP) of the UK Parliament in London can still vote on policies that, since devolution, purely concern England and not their home region if responsibility for the policy area (e.g. health, education) is devolved there to a regional legislative body. That is, when such policy is separately governed locally by the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Irish Assembly, these [=MPs=]' decisions can ''not affect their own'' constituents — yet they ''can'' still affect the electorate in English [=MPs=]' constituencies, even though the reverse is not possible. This tramples on the Great British Sense of Fair Play™.

-->--'''UsefulNotes/DonaldTrump'''[[note]]Shockingly, this is about half correct. None of them are synonymous, but people ''do'' call various parts of the UK by all these names.[[/note]]

Yes, although this is where it maybe gets even ''more'' confusing. "English" was for a long time an accepted generalisation for the whole country, including Scotland and the British parts of Ireland; this is reflected in several foreign names for the nation to this day. The word 'England' (and its foreign equivalents such as ''Angleterre'') derives from ''Angle-land'', after one of the successive waves of Germanic and Norse peoples – the [[UsefulNotes/AngloSaxons Angles and Saxons]], Jutes, Frisians, [[HornyVikings Danes and Norwegians]] – who invaded from northern Europe[[note]] the Jutes from Jutland in Denmark, the Angles from Schleswig, the Saxons from Holstein and Lower Saxony, the Frisians from the coast of Lower Saxony in Germany and what is now the province of Frisia in the Netherlands[[/note]] in the centuries of the '[[Main/DarkAgeEurope Dark Ages]]' after the withdrawal and fall of UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire. Still earlier, though, the tribes who controlled most of the south of the country were the Britons, whom scholars later called the Brythonic Celts: specifically, the Celts of UsefulNotes/{{Cornwall}} and Wales (and the aforementioned Brittany in France), to distinguish them from the Gaelic Celts of Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man as well as the various Celtic peoples of the continent (e. g. Cisalpine Gauls in Northern Italy, Transalpine Gauls in what is now France, Celtiberians on the Iberian Peninsula). It is from them that the Romans named the whole island ''Britannia''[[note]] However, they also used the name "Britannia" for their part of the island, referring to the unoccupied part as "Caledonia"[[/note]]. Thus, "British" is much the older idea, and for about the first millennium AD means 'Celtic', and is ''contrasted'' with "English" – for instance, the (probably) legendary Myth/KingArthur was far from being the proto-King of ''England'' many would describe, since the Anglo-Saxons were those very invaders that he and his Brythonic brethren sought to repel. A curious upshot of the above is that the various Celtic nationalists today, who object to being called "British", are British in that sense, whereas England is not!\\

-->--'''UsefulNotes/DonaldTrump'''[[note]]Shockingly, this is about half correct. Read on.[[/note]]

-->--'''UsefulNotes/DonaldTrump'''

Grrrr. Under no circumstances should the UK as a whole be referred to as "England", which hasn't been an independent country since 1707. It is wrong. ''Don't'' do it. Don't. This is a message many would like to get across to other nations, some of whose name for the UK in their own languages is exactly the word for England. Whether you're an overseas tourist, or a politician, or a movie star, please don't talk about the "English" response or the reception you receive in "England" when you mean the UK -- unless you're speaking your own language out of earshot of islanders. They'll otherwise accuse you of wiping three countries from the face of the map. If you're a pop star, don't come on stage in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast and scream "Hello, England!" (and for the love of all that is holy don't shout [[BritainIsOnlyLondon "Hello, London!"]]) – there is no quicker or more brutal way to lose an audience. If you're a comedian, you might ''just'' get away with it. (Yell "[[SymbolSwearing #*@%]] the English!", on the other hand, and they'll probably carry you off shoulder high...)

If you refer to someone from The Republic of Ireland as British... well, don't. Just don't. Aside from being demographically incorrect, as the ROI does not have anywhere near the concentration of British-descended persons in its population as Northern Ireland does, it's mainly because... well... it's a completely different country, it's considered impolite. At best.[[note]]Think of it like calling a Canadian "American", or vice versa, although considering the history it is more similar to calling a Polish person "German".[[/note]] Using "English" is basically basically worse, for the reasons above re: Scots and Welsh people. Many Irish people, and the Irish government, object to the geographic term "The British Isles" as well, seeing it as implies Ireland is politically "British" (i.e. part of the UK), and prefer either "The British and Irish Isles" or just avoiding the phrase altogether.[[note]]And on a historical note, it's also misleading - the Irish, historically, are not "Britons", in any sense. They're not descended from the aforementioned Welsh (Brythonic) Celts at all, but Goidelic (Gaelic) Celts, a different branch of the language/culture family.[[/note]]

Yes, although this is where it maybe gets even ''more'' confusing. "English" was for a long time an accepted generalisation for the whole country, including Scotland and the British parts of Ireland; this is reflected in several foreign names for the nation to this day. The word 'England' (and its foreign equivalents such as ''Angleterre'') derives from ''Angle-land'', after one of the successive waves of Germanic and Norse peoples – the [[UsefulNotes/AngloSaxons Angles and Saxons]], Jutes, Frisians, [[HornyVikings Danes and Norwegians]] – who invaded from northern Europe[[note]] the Jutes from Jutland in Denmark, the Angles from Schleswig, the Saxons from Holstein and Lower Saxony, the Frisians from the coast of Lower Saxony in Germany and what is now the province of Frisia in the Netherlands[[/note]] in the centuries of the '[[Main/DarkAgeEurope Dark Ages]]' after the withdrawal and fall of UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire. Still earlier though, the tribes who controlled most of the south of the country were the Britons, whom scholars later called the Brythonic Celts: specifically, the Celts of UsefulNotes/{{Cornwall}} and Wales (and the aforementioned Brittany in France), to distinguish them from the Gaelic Celts of Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man as well as the various Celtic peoples of the continent (e. g. Cisalpine Gauls in Northern Italy, Transalpine Gauls in what is now France, Celtiberians on the Iberian Peninsula). It is from them that the Romans named the whole island ''Britannia''[[note]] However, they also used the name "Britannia" for their part of the island, referring to the unoccupied part as "Caledonia"[[/note]]. Thus, "British" is much the older idea, and for about the first millennium AD means 'Celtic', and is ''contrasted'' with "English" – for instance, the (probably) legendary Myth/KingArthur was far from being the proto-King of ''England'' many would describe, since the Anglo-Saxons were those very invaders that he and his Brythonic brethren sought to repel. A curious upshot of the above is that the various Celtic nationalists today, who object to being called "British", are British in that sense, whereas England is not!\\

Yes, although this is where it maybe gets even ''more'' confusing. "English" was for a long time an accepted generalisation for the whole country, including Scotland and the British parts of Ireland; this is reflected in several foreign names for the nation to this day. The word 'England' (and its foreign equivalents such as ''Angleterre'') derives from ''Angle-land'', after one of the successive waves of Germanic and Norse peoples – the [[UsefulNotes/AngloSaxons Angles and Saxons]], Jutes, Frisians, [[HornyVikings Danes and Norwegians]] – who invaded from northern Europe[[note]] the Jutes from Jutland in Denmark, the Angles from Schleswig, the Saxons from Holstein and Lower Saxony, the Frisians from the coast of Lower Saxony in Germany and what is now the province of Frisia in the Netherlands[[/note]] in the centuries of the '[[UsefulNotes/DarkAgeEurope Dark Ages]]' after the withdrawal and fall of UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire. Still earlier though, the tribes who controlled most of the south of the country were the Britons, whom scholars later called the Brythonic Celts: specifically, the Celts of UsefulNotes/{{Cornwall}} and Wales (and the aforementioned Brittany in France), to distinguish them from the Gaelic Celts of Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man as well as the various Celtic peoples of the continent (e. g. Cisalpine Gauls in Northern Italy, Transalpine Gauls in what is now France, Celtiberians on the Iberian Peninsula). It is from them that the Romans named the whole island ''Britannia''[[note]] However, they also used the name "Britannia" for their part of the island, referring to the unoccupied part as "Caledonia"[[/note]]. Thus, "British" is much the older idea, and for about the first millennium AD means 'Celtic', and is ''contrasted'' with "English" – for instance, the (probably) legendary Myth/KingArthur was far from being the proto-King of ''England'' many would describe, since the Anglo-Saxons were those very invaders that he and his Brythonic brethren sought to repel. A curious upshot of the above is that the various Celtic nationalists today, who object to being called "British", are British in that sense, whereas England is not!\\

* '''Northern Ireland''' (a ''political'' term) takes up, as the name implies, (part of) the northeast of Ireland. It is often referred to as Ulster, though this can be politically sensitive as not all of the old Irish province of that name is actually inside Northern Ireland (although all of Northern Ireland is part of historic Ulster, three of Ulster's nine historic counties are in the Republic).[[note]]To wit, Counties Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal are in the Republic, while Counties Antrim, (London)Derry, Down, Armagh, Tyrone, and Fermanagh are in NI and thus the UK.[[/note]] The people of Northern Ireland are divided about 60/40 between Unionists, mainly Protestant, who feel they are Brits; and Nationalists, mainly Catholic, who feel they are Irish, and currently the ruling coalition mandatorily incorporates parts of both sides. Anyone born in NI can choose to have British, Irish, or dual citizenship since the Good Friday Agreement to stop everyone [[UsefulNotes/TheTroubles killing each other]]. [[note]]Northern Irish athletes with dual citizenship can elect to represent either the UK or the Republic of Ireland at the UsefulNotes/OlympicGames, for example.[[/note]]

If you refer to someone from The Republic of Ireland as British... well, don't. Just don't. Aside from being demographically incorrect, as the ROI does not have anywhere near the concentration of British-descended persons in its population as Northern Ireland does, it's mainly because... well... it's a completely different country, it's considered impolite. At best.[[note]]Think of it like calling a Canadian "American", or vice versa, although considering the history it is more similar to calling a Polish person "German".[[/note]] Using "English" is basically the same. Some Irish people object to the geographic term "The British Isles" as well, seeing it as implies Ireland is politically "British" (i.e. part of the UK), and prefer either "The British and Irish Isles" or just avoiding the phrase altogether[[note]]And on a historical note, it's also incorrect - the Irish, historically, are not "Britons", that is the aforementioned Welsh (Brythonic) Celts, at all, but Goidelic (Gaelic) Celts. [[/note]]

If you refer to someone from The Republic of Ireland as British... well, don't. Just don't. Aside from being demographically incorrect, as the ROI does not have anywhere near the concentration of British-descended persons in its population as Northern Ireland does, it's mainly because... well... it's a completely different country, it's considered impolite. At best.[[note]]Think of it like calling a Canadian "American", or vice versa, although considering the history it is more similar to calling a Polish person "German".[[/note]] Using "English" is basically the same. Some Irish people object to the geographic term "The British Isles" as well, seeing it as implies Ireland is politically "British" (i.e. part of the UK), and prefer "The British and Irish Isles".

Many from the 'Celtic fringe' of the UK in general won't identify as 'British', possibly because they weren't part of the Roman Britannia and tradition has stuck. (Whilst those from the North of England like to insist they weren't actually ''conquered'' by the Romans, so can sometimes be bracketed with the Celts in this respect, they may equally well choose to say they are British even more because of this fact.) If you refer to a Scot or a Welshman as "British", the vast majority will just accept this, although the more nationalist may insist on a local term – and although on a kind of cultural level this may be correct depending on your point of view, from a strict legal perspective, this is wrong, as Scottish and Welsh people are all British citizens, as are the vast majority of Northern Irish.[[note]]Northern Irish people are automatically citizens of the UK upon birth, but are entitled to citizenship in the Republic of Ireland, and some Nationalists might renounce British citizenship and take up exclusive ROI citizenship, hence "mostly." Because of the special relationship between the ROI and UK and their common membership in the EU, this switch is (or was) almost entirely symbolic, as going from one to the other does not deprive you of any rights or grant any particularly significant new ones, other than no longer being subject to the (highly unlikely) conscription and some subtle differences in random foreign countries' visa policies. Things got a lot more complicated when "Brexit" came up though, because among other things, residents of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens are still entitled to representation in the European parliament, but Northern Ireland will lose its MEPs. How exactly Westminster plans on solving that is, as of this writing, still unknown.[[/note]] Whatever happens, "British" is right, and "English" is ''not''. Apart from being separated by borders, this is (as touched upon above) because the Scottish Highlanders and the Welsh, plus the Irish, Manx (of the Isle of Man) and Cornish can trace their heritage back to the Celts who inhabited these isles since before the Romans, let alone the 'English', came[[note]](this can be a controversial view: Oppenheimer argues that Germanic people have also been here since pre-Roman times)[[/note]] – whereas the 'native' English descend mainly from the consecutive Germanic and Norman ([[CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkeys read: stinkin' French]]) conquests, and can be, and sometimes are, still viewed as "outsiders" and "invaders" by more radical nationalists in Wales or Scotland. Hence ''Sassenach'', Gaelic for "Saxon" and a derogatory Scottish word for English person.[[note]]It cuts both ways – the ancient Brythonic word from which ''Cymru'', the Welsh for "Wales", derived, meant 'friend'; the English term ''Wales'', though, derived from a word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy'![[/note]] Lowland Scottish culture is also mainly of Germanic origin (south-east Scotland has been Germanic as long as England has), and the dialect, [[UsefulNotes/ScottishEnglish Scots]], is of English – unlike Gaelic, which used to be the Highland language, and is still spoken in a few areas. Also, the far north of Scotland (Orkney, Shetland and part of Caithness) has a more Scandinavian heritage – it was, after all, closer for the Vikings to reach – and though its language, Norn, died out in the 19th century, some Orcadians and Shetlanders still insist they are not Scottish.\\

Many from the 'Celtic fringe' of the UK in general won't identify as 'British', possibly because they weren't part of the Roman Britannia and tradition has stuck. (Whilst those from the North of England like to insist they weren't actually ''conquered'' by the Romans, so can sometimes be bracketed with the Celts in this respect, they may equally well choose to say they are British even more because of this fact.) If you refer to a Scot or a Welshman as "British", the vast majority will just accept this, although the more nationalist may insist on a local term – and although on a kind of cultural level this may be correct depending on your point of view, from a strict legal perspective, this is wrong, as Scottish and Welsh people are all British citizens, as are the vast majority of Northern Irish.[[note]]Northern Irish people are automatically citizens of the UK upon birth, but are entitled to citizenship in the Republic of Ireland, and some Nationalists might renounce British citizenship and take up exclusive ROI citizenship, hence "mostly." Because of the special relationship between the ROI and UK and their common membership in the EU, this switch is almost entirely symbolic, as going from one to the other does not deprive you of any rights or grant any particularly significant new ones, other than no longer being subject to the (highly unlikely) conscription and some subtle differences in random foreign countries' visa policies.[[/note]] Whatever happens, "British" is right, and "English" is ''not''. Apart from being separated by borders, this is (as touched upon above) because the Scottish Highlanders and the Welsh, plus the Irish, Manx (of the Isle of Man) and Cornish can trace their heritage back to the Celts who inhabited these isles since before the Romans, let alone the 'English', came[[note]](this can be a controversial view: Oppenheimer argues that Germanic people have also been here since pre-Roman times)[[/note]] – whereas the 'native' English descend mainly from the consecutive Germanic and Norman ([[CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkeys read: stinkin' French]]) conquests, and can be, and sometimes are, still viewed as "outsiders" and "invaders" by more radical nationalists in Wales or Scotland. Hence ''Sassenach'', Gaelic for "Saxon" and a derogatory Scottish word for English person.[[note]]It cuts both ways – the ancient Brythonic word from which ''Cymru'', the Welsh for "Wales", derived, meant 'friend'; the English term ''Wales'', though, derived from a word meaning 'stranger' or 'enemy'![[/note]] Lowland Scottish culture is also mainly of Germanic origin (south-east Scotland has been Germanic as long as England has), and the dialect, [[UsefulNotes/ScottishEnglish Scots]], is of English – unlike Gaelic, which used to be the Highland language, and is still spoken in a few areas. Also, the far north of Scotland (Orkney, Shetland and part of Caithness) has a more Scandinavian heritage – it was, after all, closer for the Vikings to reach – and though its language, Norn, died out in the 19th century, some Orcadians and Shetlanders still insist they are not Scottish.\\

Hmmm. Ish. Even using the terms "British" or (say) "Scottish" isn't always enough, even when they're both correct. You've got to use the right term ''in context''. Many Scots, nationalists or otherwise, can get really infuriated with English sports commentators when they refer to an athlete as ''"bringing the gold home for Britain!"'' yet conversely to the same athlete as ''"the plucky Scot, coming in fifth..."''. Received wisdom says that the predominantly London-based media hail any Scot's – or Welsh or Northern Irish person's – sporting success as "British", but (possibly unconsciously) shunt the same person off into the ghetto marked 'Scottish', 'Welsh' etc. should they trail in last. This subtrope is traditionally personified by tennis player [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray Andy Murray]] (the joke/complaint goes that he is invariably referred to as British when he wins and Scottish when he loses), or Creator/OscarWilde[[labelnote:*]]who predates the Irish state[[/labelnote]] (who's a great "British" author, or an Irish homosexual pervert!)

Hmmm. Ish. Even using the terms "British" or (say) "Scottish" isn't always enough, even when they're both correct. You've got to use the right term ''in context''. Many Scots, nationalists or otherwise, can get really infuriated with English sports commentators when they refer to an athlete as ''"bringing the gold home for Britain!"'' yet conversely to the same athlete as ''"the plucky Scot, coming in fifth..."''. Received wisdom says that the predominantly London-based media hail any Scot's – or Welsh or Northern Irish person's – sporting success as "British", but (possibly unconsciously) shunt the same person off into the ghetto marked 'Scottish', 'Welsh' etc. should they trail in last. This subtrope is personified by tennis player [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Murray Andy Murray]]: the joke/complaint goes that he is invariably referred to as British when he wins and Scottish when he loses. (The converse happens as well: English when they win, British when they lose.)

Two of these conflicting methodologies clash, and cause a particular problem, for association football (soccer) at the Olympics. The UK has traditionally not entered the football tournament, for fear that fielding a unified British team would be regarded as 'setting a precedent' that could lead to the four individual nations losing their right to have separate teams the rest of the time. The fear is so bad that, when it was decided to enter a "Team GB" football side (for the first time in decades) for their 'home' Olympics at the London 2012 Games, the Scottish, Welsh and [Northern] Irish Football Associations were united in support of entering an all-English team.[[note]](In the end five Welshmen were in the men's squad alongside 13 Englishmen, while the women's squad featured 17 Englishwomen and two Scots.)[[/note]] On the other hand, the fielding of a unified British team for rugby union, which will return to the Olympics in 2016 in the cut-down 'sevens' format[[note]](seven players a side, playing on a standard-sized field, with 7-minute halves)[[/note]], was no problem for the International Rugby Board – the IRB endorsed the concept of a combined British Olympic sevens team back in 2011. Why the football associations can't similarly just ask international federation FIFA for a signed note saying "It's not now, and will never be, a problem with us either" is beyond comprehension (It may be because, among Sports fans as a whole, FIFA is seen as a lot more corrupt and generally dishonorable than the IRB and thus more likely to renege on such a deal).

Two of these conflicting methodologies clash, and cause a particular problem, for association football (soccer) at the Olympics. The UK has traditionally not entered the football tournament, for fear that fielding a unified British team would be regarded as 'setting a precedent' that could lead to the four individual nations losing their right to have separate teams the rest of the time. The fear is so bad that, when it was decided to enter a "Team GB" football side (for the first time in decades) for their 'home' Olympics at the London 2012 Games, the Scottish, Welsh and [Northern] Irish Football Associations were united in support of entering an all-English team.[[note]](In the end five Welshmen were in the men's squad alongside 13 Englishmen, while the women's squad featured 17 Englishwomen and two Scots.)[[/note]] On the other hand, the fielding of a unified British team for rugby union, which will return to the Olympics in 2016 in the cut-down 'sevens' format[[note]](seven players a side, playing on a standard-sized field, with 7-minute halves)[[/note]], was no problem for the International Rugby Board – the IRB endorsed the concept of a combined British Olympic sevens team back in 2011. Why the football associations can't similarly just ask international federation FIFA for a signed note saying "It's not now, and will never be, a problem with us either" is beyond comprehension.