Usage[edit]

When we think about social work in the British Isles, a contentious term if there ever was one, what do we expect to see?

For example, the term 'British Isles', in strict geographical language refers to all islands that comprise the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Channel Islands and so on. However, like other such terms it is probably not an easy term to accept for some who inhabit one or other part of these islands (particularly Ireland) since 'British' may refer more to non-Irish parts of these islands.

The difficulties of finding a correct, suitable and acceptable term for these islands may seem a rather uninteresting and trivial semantic issue. However, the difficulty in finding a suitable short convenient term indicates a deeper problem. It suggests, indeed confirms, that these islands are not often thought to be a unity, an entity.

Recognizing that there is no satisfactory solution to the problem of how to refer to these territories as an entity, we have taken refuge in the geographically 'correct', if slightly archaic term, 'the British Isles' throughout this book to refer to all of the islands. We offer our apologies to all who dislike this term and invite them to provide a better one!

These are various quotes from Chapter 1 of the book Social Work in the British Isles, by Malcolm Payne & Steven Shardlow, published 2001 by Jessica Kingsley Publishers ISBN:1853028339


However, the New British History, may now be in danger of running into difficulties—not over basic aims but over its name. 'Britannia' strictly speaking referred to the island later divided into England, Scotland and Wales, and excluded Ireland. While both islands were ruled by a regime based in London, British Isles seemed a useful term to refer to its home (non-colonial) territories, but once most of the island of Ireland became the independent Republic of Ireland it seemed to some no longer appropriate. It seemed a term cunningly conceived to enmesh Ireland in Britain, a colonialist term. 'British Isles' might seem to suggest some lingering claim to British hegemony even after Irish independence. With sensitivities increasingly acute through continuing conflict over the status of Northern Ireland, ther came growing acceptance that 'the British Isles' was a politically incorrect term. In the context of historical writing there was an easy answer to the need for a new name to cover the whole of the group of islands lying off the north-west European mainland which have been intimately linked through many centuries of history and have closely overlapping experiences. 'British' or 'British Isles' history could become 'Three Kingdoms' history. (An alternative suggestion, to re-name the island group the 'North Atlantic Archipelago' was striking, but hardly catchy).

Three Kingdoms might suit the needs of historians, but is of no use to modern politicians dealing with the problems of the 'One Republic and One Monarchy' Island group. Instead a new term has slipped into debate that is not contentious, promoted especially by the Irish. The British Isles have become 'These Islands.' It may seem at first bizarre and evasive, but it may be that within a generation or two 'These Islands' will be boldly emblazoned on maps where 'British Isles' once stood. Or perhaps just 'The Isles,' for there is already in shadowy existence a 'Council of the Isles' made up of representatives of the British and Irish governments, of the devolved assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland and of the parliament of Scotland.

The New British History, having transformed our perspectives of the past and contributed to recent debates on devolution, may abandon its name as the British Isles is doing, and re-emerge as Isles History. If this be thought unlikely, remember how quickly British historians abandoned the term 'German Ocean' when that was found unacceptable with the outbreak of the First World War. In its place came 'North Sea,' and historians hastened to impose it on the past.

Stevenson, D. [1973] (2003). The Scottish revolution 1637-1644: the triumph of the covenanters. pp. 9-10. OCLC 185759152. Author's preface to the 2003 edition.


Another distortion that New British History visited upon history writing on Ireland and Scotland was that it encouraged scholars to look for similarities and downplay differences between the historical experience of their respective countries and that of England. This desire to assume, if not prove, similarity, at least for the early modern period, has brought its practitioners to attribute an integrity to Britain and Ireland as a historical and political unit that exceeded the reality. Moreover, by employing the solecism 'the British Isles' (a locution that had been studiously avoided by Irish historians of previous generations, including those who were Ulster Unionists) to lend credibility to this supposed integrity, they alienated that very Irish audience they should have been seeking to influence.

Nicholas Canny, 2003, "Writing Early Modern History: Ireland, Britain, and the Wider World" in The Historical Journal, 46, 3 (2003), pp. 723–747, Cambridge University Press

Geographers may have formed the habit of referring to the archipelago consisting of Britain and Ireland as the Britannic isles, but there never had been a historical myth linking the islands. Medieval historians, such as the twelfth-century Geoffrey of Monmouth, had developed the idea that Britain (i.e. England, Scotland, and Wales) had first been settled by Trojan refugees fleeing after the capture and destruction of their city by the Greeks. The founding monarch - Brutus - had then divided up the island between his three sons, the eldest (Albion) inheriting England and the younger sons Scotland and Wales. This permitted English antiquarians to claim a superiority for the English nation and the English Crown. In the fourteenth century the Scots developed their own counter-myth which acknowledged that Trojans had first occupied England and Wales, but asserted that Scotland had been occupied by colonists from Greece - the conquerors of Troy. Faced by such Scottish counter-myths and by the scepticism bred of humanist scholarship, few people took any of these historical claims seriously by 1600. English claims that kings of Scotland had regularly recognized the feudal suzerainty of the English Crown had to be abandoned in 1603 when the Scottish royal house inherited the English Crown. But the fact is that many of the inhabitants of Britain - especially intellectuals around the royal Courts - had for centuries conceptualized a relationship which bound them together into a common history. There was no historical myths binding Ireland into the story. The term 'Britain' was widely understood and it excluded Ireland; there was no geopolitical term binding together the archipelago.

John Morrill, 1996, The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor and Stuart Britain, Oxford University Press: Oxford

At the outset, it should be stated that while the expression 'The British Isles' is evidentially still commonly employed, its intermittent use throughout this work is only in the geographical sense, in so far as that is acceptable. Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable. It has been perceived as cloaking the idea of a 'great England', or an extended south-eastern English imperium, under a common Crown from 1603 onwards. The influential English historian, Edward Gibbon, in speaking of 'England', referred to 'the extraneous appendages of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales." The historical basis of this deep and widespread perception was not just from raw English aggrandizement, crude English colonialism, or simple defense interests, but also from wider European Resaissance ideas of monarch and increasingly proactive, centralizing regal government. The Anglo-British isles originated ultimately in the Norman Conquest, was later boosted by Tudor expansionism and territorial consolidation, and the mutated into an Anglo-Scottish condominium driven by Stewart all-'British' ideology.

Nowadays, however, 'Britain and Ireland' is the more favoured expression, though there are problems with that too. For the sake of convenience and without any coded undertones I have, however, opted simply to use both expressions interchangably. There is no consensus on the matter, inevitably. It is unlikely that the ultimate in non-partisanship that has recently appeared, the (East) 'Atlantic Archipelago' will have appeal beyond captious scholars.

- Ian Hazlettm, 2003, The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction, Continuum: London

I myself believe that the insertion or reinsertion of the hyphen between British and Irish will come to be seen in time as significant as the insertion of the hyphen between Angle and Saxon. This provided the critical mass for something approaching a proto-Anglo- Saxon state, which lasted for the second half of the 10th century, although it should be noted that this polity already "incorporated" the Brythonic-speakers of Cornwall. (Incidentally, the term Anglo-Saxon survives in the most unlikely of places, such as "Anglo-Saxon capitalism", which indicates a continuing commonality between Britain and America on economic matters, though I would place a large bet than neither country contains anyone who could claim to be purely such.)

Its significance might also be apparent if we consider that the extreme Irish nationalists behind the moves to secede from UK before and after World War I called themselves "Sinn Fein", in Gaelic meaning "Ourselves Alone" - condensing their wish to establish an autarkic, rural, Gaelic-speaking, sovereign and predominantly Catholic Ireland. To insert the hyphen is to challenge the originating ideology of the southern Irish state. It also challenges a burgeoning Anglo-Saxon-Cornish-Welsh British (British being derived from the Brythonic Prydein under Tudor influence) hegemony of the 16th century which felt free to name these isles 'British', and which later, at times, wanted to rename the Catholic Irish as West Britons.

- Simon Partridge, 2000, The British-Irish Council: the trans-islands symbolic and political possibilities, British Council: London.

Stephen Oppenheimer, Origins of the British, Constable and Robinson, London, 2007, p.xvi:

Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. p. 29. ((cite book)): |pages= has extra text (help)

- Begoña Aretxaga et al. (eds.), 2004, Empire & Terror: Nationalism/postnationalism in the New Millennium, University of Nevada Press: Nevada, p.42

Apart from some separatist nationalists,many people, perhaps most,in these islands now have a multiple or hyphenated sense of identity. In the sheer density of familial,civic, cultural and economic links between the islands,including reciprocal citizenship rights, we seem to be witnessing the birth of a British-Irish commonality across them, including settlers and their descendants from the new Commonwealth.This growing phenomenon,hopefully, will be given proper expression through the proposed British-Irish Council.In time, a new word may emerge to cover this politico-cultural sharing,akin to Nordic, Scandinavian or Iberian, areas,paradoxically, in which there are greater linguistic and cultural differences.The classical Greek name for these islands,“Pretanic”,has been suggested.For the time being,it seems we will have to live with the hyphenated “British–Irish”or “Irish–British”,and learn to say goodbye to the mutual linguistic colonialisms of the “British Isles”and “Republic of Ireland”.

- Simon Partridge, [date] The British Union State: imperial hangover or flexible citizens’ home?, The Catalyst Trust: London



The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996. ISBN:052156879X.

The New British History: Founding a Modern State 1603-1715, by Glenn Burgess, Published by I.B.Tauris, 1999 ISBN 1860641903, 9781860641909, Page 86, point 7.

World Geography of Travel and Tourism By Alan Lew, C. Michael Hall, Timothy J. Dallen, Dallen J. Timothy, published by Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008 ISBN 0750679786, 9780750679787, Page 94 --HighKing (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

Ireland and Great Britain

Britain and Ireland


Anglo-Celtic isles

Atlantic archipelago

British and Irish Isles

Islands of the North Atlantic