Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by mritzmann | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mritzmann

On the other hand, it would be confusing to have two top level domains for one country.

View on HN

UK’s not one country though. E.g. there’s https://www.gov.uk/, but also https://www.gov.scot/ and https://gov.wales/.

those aren't classed by icann as cctlds

(in the same way .vegas and .miami aren't)

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.

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.

What does that mean?

Honestly, nothing. I just enjoy the symmetry.

But really - we like to think there's a sensible definition of what a country is. There isn't. What makes Scotland a country and not Montana?

I'm in Ireland, the examples get even more convoluted. For some sports we field a team as a UN-recognised nation-state. For some sports we field a team as an island. If you're born on the island to parents who are citizens of the island, you can claim an Irish passport - whether or not you were born in the country of Ireland. Sometimes it's a geopolitical entity, sometimes it's a geographical entity, sometimes it's a political entity. Sometimes it's not even green.

Is the UK a nation? Is the US a nation? Is the Navajo Nation a nation? Is the UK a country? Is England a country? Is Malboro Country a country?

My passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But I'm not convinced Great Britain is a United Kingdom (England and Scotland legally are, Wales may be a principality depending on who and when you ask), and I'm not sure if Northern Ireland was ever a Kingdom (Ulster perhaps, otherwise it's not a kingdom, but the remains of a king's claims).

Nationhood is almost as convoluted as the modern take on gender. You can self-identify as anything you like if you have an army to back you up.

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...

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.

I think the independent status of the City of London is grossly exaggerated and not really comparable with the Channel Islands.

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...

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...

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

> 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

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."

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)

The Scottish Parliament is sometimes described as having been re-established in '99

https://www.parliament.scot/about/history-of-the-scottish-pa...

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.

> 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).

Fun fact, besides .ru (Russia), .su (Soviet Union) is also still active.

It's not the only country with that, for instance the USA has both .us and .gov for its government domains.

There's a few that already have that, China has .cn and .中国 for instance.

Spain has .cat for Catalonia.

I think the organization that administers .cat would take issue with the idea that it is owned by "Spain" :)

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.

Does this mean it is time to retire the .su TLD as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com