Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

> England is already the second most crowded major country in the EU

This particular definition of country is an abuse of the British term (let alone "major"). You cannot compare England to Italy; you could compare it to Northern Italy, maybe. If you want to compare "major" country to "major" country, then use UK numbers. Figures would likely look different: every "major" nation out there will have more populous and less populous areas. You don't get to discount Scotland but include Southern Italy just because it suits your viewpoint better.

TBH, here in Northern England there is still plenty of brownfield to revamp and house prices are fairly sane. The problem is not Europe or England, it's bloody London, so go fix your own bloody problem.

View on HN

I actually found this on wikipedia https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_popul...:

"England officially became the second most crowded major country in the EU in 2008, according to figures released by the British Office for National Statistics"

I believe, it's because people from continental Europe sometimes don't differ between UK and England - but it's sensitive issue in the UK :-). UK is actually the first if we take European countries with over 20M people - 255people/km2.

And if we take countries with less than 20M people they're not even on the list, imagine that.

It's clear, that the regions varies - and you have the possibility to go and check the data in the dashboard - they are the ultimate source. It's definitely not only London and not England only. That's about it.

England is more than four times the area of the second most dense EU country (Belgium) and nevertheless has higher population density.

So the wording is imprecise but I don't think the comparison is unfair.

NL is considerably more dense than Belgium and definitely not the most dense (that's Monaco).

Sorry, I omitted the qualifier ("major" in the original I was criticising) that was meant to exclude the tiny states which really are not a fair comparison (100 times smaller).

Belgium and NL are about the same size.

But Monaco is not. So NL is the most dense [macroscopic] EU state, and England is more dense than the second most dense such state, Belgium.

Actually afaik the Netherlands is more population dense than Belgium (and has a population nearing 20m, instead of a little over 10m.)

Beyond that, it's absolutely true, the UK tops the list as a country with more than 20m people. (besides Germany, about 10% less dense or so, other populous countries like France, Spain, Poland, Ukraine, are much less dense, sometimes less than half as much)

Right, Belgium is the second most dense ["major"] EU country and NL is the first ... because as stated upthread, England isn't a country.

This is an interesting map of population density in the UK (from 2011): http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/census-map-2-1---pop-d...)

A quick search didn't turn up anything with a decent resolution that covered Europe/the rest of the world at the same time (seemed mainly to be on a per-country basis).

I am particularly confused what made you so upset. Is it something that offends you?

He's not upset, he simply likes for things presented as facts to actually be facts and for the representation to fit reality without cherry picking the bits that support the foregone conclusion.

So then England is country and Northern Italy is a cultural and geographical region, without any administrative purpose. Those are facts. But I am confused because those facts are simply verifiable and nobody should react to them in this way.

Does England have a seat at the UN?

I rest my case.

Countries don't have seats in UN, states and kingdoms do. I rest my case.

So let me get this straight -- which French "country" would you compare to England? The one that, by pure chance, happens to overlap with France-the-nation? Izzard's sketch on the tactical deployment of flags comes to mind.

Oh, and what "administrative purpose" binds England so much, considering it doesn't even have its own separated Parliament? Just because you have a west-lothian identity crisis, it doesn't mean the world has to play along.

You are free to refer to UK "countries" in internal matters (and football, of course), but when you go and compare with the rest of the world, you should be as honest as to compare entity-with-UN-seat to entity-with-UN-seat. Otherwise I might as well compare a couple of busy Italian blocks of flats to a Kent farm.

EDIT: I don't make this point out of some particular passion, but because your idea absolves the UK government of abdicating its responsibilities. If there is a density problem in London, enact policies attracting people to other cities, cities that actually need more people and would benefit from expansion. That's what other countries do. Coming up with arbitrary comparisons just to twist facts to this or that agenda is simply dishonest.

Some states has only one country as France you just mentioned. I don't understand why referring to facts you perceive as reality twisting. What's wrong with you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com