Why do they insist that they are countries?

They're basically the only country who gets uppity and insists that their non-independent provinces are actually countries.
England doesn't even have a devolved government lol
The argument is basically "They are countries because we call them countries".

Attached: UK map.jpg (1400x1575, 188.14K)

It’s just cope they were distinct 300 years ago but now they might as well just all be anglos. Their differences are so marginal. I like Scottish culture but they are basically Englishmen in my eyes.

>they both speak english so they're the same
sounds like the cope is yours

Just wait until you discover Spain

Why are foreigners shocked when they realise the United Kingdom is 4 separate kingdoms united? It’s not a difficult concept.

Yeah you're 100% right it's totally retarded and counter productive

Fundamentally we're British, all of us are English-speaking Britons, not genetically alien from each other in any significant way, especially not in regards to how diverse other nations are

Stupid regionalist mongs want to throw away a glorious national identity and history for celtic or anglo saxon larping and regressive provincialism, inventing artificial differences just to split up our island for no actual reason beyond misguided self hatred

It's not really. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland comes from the singular Kingdom of Great Britain

because they just are. deal with it chud

>b-b-b-b-b-b-b

shut the fuck up lmfao

This. Direct rule from London now. Regional parliaments should be destroyed and Scotland and Wales should be governed as counties of England. Stupid, regressive institutions that create massive inefficiencies in the economy and bureaucracy of the country.

There isn't a single person outside the uk who even knows there are separate countries in your country. England and Britain and the uk are completely interchangeable.

>we're British, all of us are English-speaking Britons

Only English people and fans of Rangers FC actually believe this

We're seperate countries because we each had over 1000 years of seperate history, culture and institutions before we joined in a political union in the 1700s

As a Lowland Scot, I agree with this. I view a man from York as much as a fellow countryman as a man from Aberdeen. I would say, however, that I do find the northern English to be a bit more familiar to myself than the southern English.

Because most other countries either don't have a continuous history since medieval times, or if they did they managed to truly centralize (for better or worse) into one single country.
Great Britain is truly a rather unique mess when you think about it, and even more so if we consider the holdings of it's head of state that isn't even a part of Great Britain itself.

Okay, but how is a man from York fundamentally different to an Australian, or even a Yank?

>fans of Rangers FC
Yes.

Attached: 6428723B-F89A-4250-8E02-AC2DCBD054A7.jpg (1140x760, 225.51K)

kino

Such a continually seething club lol

>name is THE United Kingdom
>is 4 separate kingdoms
ummmm

If I'm speaking to someone from England then the conversation is often colloquial and its easier to relate to them in such a way where it would probably not be the case if I were speaking to an Australian or an American. We live on the same little island, we eat the same food, wear the same clothes, speak the same language, consume the same media, and mostly use the same phrases and expressions. I don't ever think of an English person as someone alien to me.

>conversation is often colloquial

Scottish and English people talk completely differently, colloquial. English people joke about this all the time.

>we eat the same food, wear the same clothes, speak the same language, consume the same media, and mostly use the same phrases and expressions

99% of this is true for Yanks and Aussies as well

>Such a continually seething club lol
>starts crying about rangers unprovoked

>We're seperate countries because we each had over 1000 years of seperate history, culture and institutions before we joined in a political union in the 1700s

Britain was just Britain in antiquity. Roman Britain had a distinct Romano-British culture. The dark ages caused by the fall of Rome resulted in fractured medieval states.

England as a kingdom was ruled by the Welsh as early as 1485. Anglo saxon hegemony occurred from around 577. That's 900 years of our least chronicled and least prosperous and least relevant existence. The literal dark ages. And Britain, unlike most of Europe, truly had a dark age.

From the start of Roman Britain to the end of Romano-British power, from the start of Tudor England until now, is about 1071 years, of our most chronicled and powerful and relevant and prosperous existence

Attached: UK-flag-Union-Jack-featured.jpg (1200x801, 43.27K)

>Britain was just Britain in antiquity

No.

>Roman Britain had a distinct Romano-British culture.

Roman Britain only comprised about 2/3 of Great Britain at most.

>England as a kingdom was ruled by the Welsh as early as 1485. Anglo saxon hegemony occurred from around 577. That's 900 years of our least chronicled and least prosperous and least relevant existence. The literal dark ages. And Britain, unlike most of Europe, truly had a dark age.
>From the start of Roman Britain to the end of Romano-British power, from the start of Tudor England until now, is about 1071 years, of our most chronicled and powerful and relevant and prosperous existence

I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

>>Britain was just Britain in antiquity
>No.

Britons. Britannia. These are from Roman times. Antiquity. This is basic

>Roman Britain only comprised about 2/3 of Great Britain at most.
The important bit. They could have gone further north but were happy to just build a wall instead.