Finally, Great Britain Explained, whew!

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
British Antarctic Territory is governed by the Antarctic Treaty. There are claims to most of it from both Argentina and Chile. The claim of Argentina is predicated on their claim to the Falkland Islands, a claim not recognised by the United Nations (the UN many years ago declared that the wishes of the people presently living on the Falklands are paramount, which in effect means that the UN agrees the Falklands are British). The South Shetland Islands are covered by the Antarctic Treaty in as much as nations neither accept nor dispute British sovereignty (and they are administered as BAT), but the UK position is an assertion of sovereignty to these islands as a matter separate from the claim to continental British Antarctic Territory. As far as I can see, if oil is discovered in the South Shetlands the UK would see no reason not to exploit it. The South Orkney Islands were once considered a dependency of the Falkland Islands - now they are in BAT - though I think this is just an administrative convenience which could be reversed. There is little doubt that a Cameron-led UK government will continue to explore for oil in the South Atlantic, and will be prepared to act to assert UK sovereignty if the issue makes economic sense. The British claim could one day soon be a lively issue in international politics.

This is more enlightening.
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I have many Indian friends who insist Great Britain no longer has any claims of India being a commonwealth -- or anything else -- since the 26th of January 1950 when the Republic of India was officially proclaimed and cut away from any and all things "British." They all seem quite emphatic about this, although I'm sure there are many Brits who assume the British Raj Act is somehow still in place. Certainly, Great Britain makes no claim that Pakistan has anything like a commonwealth status with GB. And if Great Britain does, they've obviously dropped the political foot ball. No, I'm quite certain that India is quite independent of Great Britain these days and any attempts to change that status will cause a great deal of pain for both countries. The citizens of Great Britain should just be happy with their anglo-basterdized versions of vindaloo and politely leave the Republic of India to handle it's own affairs.

Claiming India as a commonwealth is sort of like a ditzy ditzy British Dame asking her local vicker "And what's the church's position on the China problem these days?"
 

ManofThunder

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Posts
4,820
Media
52
Likes
1,913
Points
248
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I have many Indian friends who insist Great Britain no longer has any claims of India being a commonwealth -- or anything else -- since the 26th of January 1950 when the Republic of India was officially proclaimed and cut away from any and all things "British." They all seem quite emphatic about this, although I'm sure there are many Brits who assume the British Raj Act is somehow still in place. Certainly, Great Britain makes no claim that Pakistan has anything like a commonwealth status with GB. And if Great Britain does, they've obviously dropped the political foot ball. No, I'm quite certain that India is quite independent of Great Britain these days and any attempts to change that status will cause a great deal of pain for both countries. The citizens of Great Britain should just be happy with their anglo-basterdized versions of vindaloo and politely leave the Republic of India to handle it's own affairs.

Claiming India as a commonwealth is sort of like a ditzy ditzy British Dame asking her local vicker "And what's the church's position on the China problem these days?"

As an Englishman and a citizen of Great Britain, I can tell you that neither I nor anyone I know claims/believes that India is 'ours'. We are perfectly willing to acknowledge that our country is our country and their country is theirs. Oh, and I remember from somewhere that curry, or at least one type of curry was actually invented in Scotland. Weird I know! I think I first learnt of this from an episode of QI. :smile:
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I have many Indian friends who insist Great Britain no longer has any claims of India being a commonwealth -- or anything else -- since the 26th of January 1950 when the Republic of India was officially proclaimed and cut away from any and all things "British." They all seem quite emphatic about this, although I'm sure there are many Brits who assume the British Raj Act is somehow still in place. Certainly, Great Britain makes no claim that Pakistan has anything like a commonwealth status with GB. And if Great Britain does, they've obviously dropped the political foot ball. No, I'm quite certain that India is quite independent of Great Britain these days and any attempts to change that status will cause a great deal of pain for both countries. The citizens of Great Britain should just be happy with their anglo-basterdized versions of vindaloo and politely leave the Republic of India to handle it's own affairs.

Claiming India as a commonwealth is sort of like a ditzy ditzy British Dame asking her local vicker "And what's the church's position on the China problem these days?"
I can't tell if you're serious.
India and Pakistan are both in the Commonwealth.
Nations in the Commonwealth are co-equal with the UK.
There is no hierarchy.
There is no implication that any member of the Commonwealth is so as a result of being a commonwealth.

 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I can't tell if you're serious.
India and Pakistan are both in the Commonwealth.
Nations in the Commonwealth are co-equal with the UK.
There is no hierarchy.
There is no implication that any member of the Commonwealth is so as a result of being a commonwealth.

There is a difference between being a member of the Commonwealth Of Nations and being a part of the Commonwealth Realm, is there not?
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
There is a difference between being a member of the Commonwealth Of Nations and being a part of the Commonwealth Realm, is there not?

Yes. There are 16 nations in a grouping that is entirely informal and is loosely called the Commonwealth Realm.
But those nations are not called "commonwealths," as far as I know.
Canada is in the Commonwealth Realm, but I have never heard it called a commonwealth.
The Commonwealth Realm is that subset of the Commonwealth of Nations that continues to call the Queen the head of state ... but, as you well know, as a Canadian ... not as the Queen of the UK, but as the Queen of Canada, etc.
My point is that those 16 nations are not commonwealths.

 

Gillette

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Posts
6,214
Media
4
Likes
95
Points
268
Age
52
Location
Halifax (Nova Scotia, Canada)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
My question wasn't regarding Canada but India.
In what sense are India and Pakistan in the Commonwealth?

From what I read they are in The Commonwealth of Nations and were both formerly Commonwealth Realms.

Basically I don't understand what you said to MLB who was commenting on Jason's suggestion that India's omission from the video was a big oops even though it wasn't because the Commonwealth of Nations is something different again from GB, UK, CR, CD or BOTs.

Or summat.

*edit
I'm confused and now going to bed.
 
Last edited:

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
My question wasn't regarding Canada but India.
In what sense are India and Pakistan in the Commonwealth?
By both being members.

From what I read they are in The Commonwealth of Nations and were both formerly Commonwealth Realms.
Yes.

Basically I don't understand what you said to MLB who was commenting on Jason's suggestion that India's omission from the video was a big oops even though it wasn't because the Commonwealth of Nations is something different again from GB, UK, CR, CD or BOTs.
I think midlifebear is using "commonwealth" in an American sense which might be applied, for example, to Puerto Rico.
My point is that the states in the Commonwealth Realm are not commonwealths in that sense ... at least, I don't think they are.


Now, things get a little tricky, and I fear that senility has settled in on me too heavily to proceed. But I will try.

Jason did mistakenly assume that there is no "Commonwealth Realm," but that's understandable since the term has no basis in law, and, I think, is virtually unused these days.
Jason quite correctly asserted that India should be considered part of the Commonwealth of Nations ... but that was beside the point, because the video was speaking of the Commonwealth Realm.

Now, midlifebear did not seem to notice that Jason was talking about the Commonwealth of Nations, and wished to oppose a suggestion that India is in the Commonwealth Realm.
Which is obviously true, but his way of making that point was to say that India is not at all a commonwealth.

And my point (which is feeling pretty beclouded now) was that the nations in the Commonwealth Realm are not in any usual sense commonwealths, anyway ... or certainly don't have to be. Canada, for example, has complete control of its constitution.

I'm confused and now going to bed.
So am I.
Move over.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, as Hhuck points out I meant the "Commonwealth of Nations" which is usually called the "Commonwealth". I confess I had not previously heard the term "Commonwealth Realm" - I wonder if perhaps it is actively used only by some of the nations that have the Queen as their head of state. Or maybe the term has just passed me by! Certainly a collective term for the nations led by the Queen is convenient. The term used to be "dominion" - I wonder if this still has legal force as describing the nature of the relationship (even if nations such as Canada have taken it out of their national name). I've never heard the UK called a Commonwealth Realm though it is part of the Queen's dominion - not that we use that term much.

The Commonwealth of Nations provides a lot more than the Commonwealth Games - heads of state do meet, and there is a secretariat. It's growing - there are several applicants to join right now, including Yemen. If Yemen end up with a decent government after the present turmoil the Commonwealth may be a means of tying them in to the values of the free world. Sudan has applied also. I don't think there is any prospect of that nation joining, but South Sudan might be a possible in a few years. France applied in the 1950s (and was refused). Maybe we should re-look at this alongside the 50 year Anglo-French defence alliance. Israel has not applied, yet is often considered as a potential applicant. The idea seems to be that if the Commonwealth Nations indicated that they would accept Israel then Israel would apply. This strikes me as a concept which could be beneficial to peace in the Middle East as Israel would be accepting the Harare Declaration and the Commonwealth's enforcement mechanisms.
 

SomeGuyOverThere

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Posts
1,382
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
258
Location
Glasgow (Glasgow City, Scotland)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
What's this about Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Hebridies, Orkney and Shetland being outside GB? I suppose they are outside the geographical concept of GB, but there is also the political concept of the GB (The UK of GB and NI) which certainly includes them. Indeed the clip seems to think that GB is a geographical concept alone - it is both geographical and political and the two don't exactly overlap.

The clip was right, "technically" i.e. geographically, "Great Britain" is a specific island and the largest of the British Isles. In common language we tend to refer to Great Britain as a shorthand for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Really Great Britain is not a political entity, but a geographical one, while the UK is the political entity which is mainly situated on it.

Yes, as Hhuck points out I meant the "Commonwealth of Nations" which is usually called the "Commonwealth". I confess I had not previously heard the term "Commonwealth Realm" - I wonder if perhaps it is actively used only by some of the nations that have the Queen as their head of state.
Exactly. A nation can be in the Commonwealth of Nations and not be a Commonwealth Realm. E.g. India is a Commonwealth Nation but is a republic, while Canada is a Commonwealth Realm and recognises Elizabeth II as the head of state.