Talk:British overseas territories/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ireland was Britain's first colony and, thus, Northern Ireland is the oldest British Colony. The consitutional relationship of Northern Ireland with Great Britain is different than, for example, the constitutional relationship between Scotland and Britain. Although Britain claims that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, Britain does not claim that Northern Ireland is part of Britain. Any discussion of British Colonies should include Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Ireland was never a colony of Great Britain. Northern Ireland is British and part of the United Kingdom. Colonies are not integrated parts of sovereign states.YourPTR! 15:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was moved manually. To see earlier page history, check Overseas territory of the United Kingdom -- JFG 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

...I fixed that. CDC (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone known if crown colonies are different than royal colonies? This is in reference to British holdings in North American in the 17th and 18th centuries. jengod 22:41, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression royal colonies. As I understand it, Crown colonies was the general name given to all colonies administered by the British government, such as the original six divisions of Australia, the various territories in the Caribbean, the original sub-divisions of South Africa, Singapore and elsewhere. Those who had not achieved independence were eventually redesignated 'dependent territories' under the Commonwealth. Agendum 00:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's some kind of difference between a Crown Colony and a plain old Colony. The distinction comes up in the history of British Columbia. The Colony of Vancouver's Island was established in 1849, the Crown Colony of British Columbia was established on the mainland in 1858. The two were amalgamated in 1866 and shared the Crown Colony title until 1871, when the colony joined Canada. There's a legal difference of some kind; what the Governor's powers are, perhaps (both Colonies had very unorthodox political cultures because of the dual role of Hudson's Bay Company boss held by the Governor, and because of the Governor's peculiar way of getting things done, esp. on the mainland). Skookum1 21:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A Colony is defined by the Colonial Laws Validity Act - '1. The Term "Colony" shall in this Act include all of Her Majesty 's Possessions abroad in which there shall exist a Legislature as hereinafter defined except the Channel Islands the Isle of Man and such Territories as may for the Time being be vested in Her Majesty under or by virtue of any Act of Parliament for the Government of India.' The Crown Colonies were colonies which did not possess legislatures and were ruled directly by the Crown through the Governor, although sometimes there was an appointed legislative council. Yet another reason why we need a historical article on colonies that does not redirect to British overseas territories. Alan 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, that definition is only valid for that Act, which was designed to regulate colonial legislation, so had to apply to colonies with legislatures. The Interpretation Act 1978, provides: ""Colony" means any part of Her Majesty's dominions outside the British Islands except-- (a) countries having fully responsible status within the Commonwealth; (b) territories for whose external relations a country other than the United Kingdom is responsible; (c) associated states; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature are deemed for the purposes of this definition to be one colony". The 1889 Interpretation Act read: "The expression "colony" shall mean any part of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British Islands, and of British India, and where parts of such dominions are under both a central and a local legislature, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purposes of this definition, be deemed to be one colony."
There are only three instances of the use of the expression Crown colony in UK legislation, only one of which is an Act of Parliament. The Federal Council of Australasia Act 1885 defines Colonies as "The colonies (including their respective dependencies) of Fiji, New Zealand, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia, and the province of South Australia, and any other colonies that may hereafter be created in Australasia, or those of the said colonies in respect to which this Act is in operation" and Crown colony as "Any colony in which the control of public officers is retained by Her Majesty's Imperial Government". So that supports the idea that a distinction existed at that time, making Crown colonies a subset of Colonies. However, the two statutory instruments that use the expression Crown colony seem to use it as if it meant the same as colony. My opinion is that the expression Crown colony was not a precisely-defined term, e.g. one might say that in 1867 the Straits Settlements became a Crown colony as opposed to a 'colony' under the government of British India or (previously) of the East India Company. But if there is confusion on the subject, we may need to have separate pages. Andrew Yong 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Crown Colony was never a very precise definition and we do require separate pages. I have found no example of any of the Australasian colonies being described as Crown colonies in Australian, British or New Zealand legislation. The Colonial Laws Validity Act carries a lot of weight because it was an attenpt to regulate the confict of laws for the empire as a whole. Alan 17:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the Crown Colony page should be at most a disambiguation page, seeing as there is no precise definition and seeing as how most of the existing links do not have the more restrictive meaning in mind. Alternatively, it might be easier to provide an explanation in the existing page. Andrew Yong 22:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does list {Crowncolonies} here accomplish? --Jiang 20:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A consistent user interface within the topic, as I said in the summary. I thought that was the whole point behind them; otherwise we might as well replace them with categories. If you are researching British overseas territories, a consistent menu makes navigating easier. Also, I don't think aesthetics is a poor reason for keeping something at all. I'll turn the question around and ask how the template is detrimental to the page? (And, again, please don't flag disputed removals as minor). Rls 20:59, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

The consistent user interface here only applies to the article components within the template. This means the template belongs at the individual crown colony articles. This article is on crown colonies in general and is not on a crown colony so it is in different class than, say, the article on British Indian Ocean Territory.

The template is detrimental to the page because it is out of place and useless. It accomplishes nothing so it is a waste of space. --Jiang 00:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The consistent user interface here only applies to the article components within the template
Er, no. The general page is linked to by the template as well.
The general article is clearly part of the topic. I find this structure useful for browsing purposes; clearly others do as well since there are several other pages in Wikipedia with this format: e.g. Communities, regions and provinces of Belgium and States and territories of Australia.
I propose replacing the template on the grounds of precedence and that at the very worst it is only a block at the bottom of the page that does not even need to be scrolled past if it is of no use to anyone. Rls 23:18, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Just because Belgium and Australia has it doesn't mean they're in the right. There is no such precendence. I would guess that most countries do not have such templates at the bottom of their articles. For example, political divisions of China has no template.

Although the general page is linked to by the template, the information contained within the template is already included in the article text. If you want to browse, you look at the list and browse from there. The template is only necessary elsewhere because it makes little sense to add a "list of crown colonies" at the bottom of each crown colony. Again, I don't see how this is in the same class as the individual crown colonies. --Jiang 23:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • It is still a precedent, even if there are conflicting examples. It shows that there is some disagreement on this issue, regardless of your assertions.
  • It is rather arrogant telling me how I should browse. I personally find it useful and others apparently do too.
  • The template is not necessary, but I am of the opinion it is helpful.
  • They are in the same topic, which I believe is the collection of what most readers of Wikipedia are interested in viewing in one session, not the same "class".
  • It is clear that we are not going to achieve consensus on this issue since you are simply restating your arguments. Will you concede that having the template on the page is not a problem or shall we seek comments from other users? Rls 01:23, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
I am still not of the opinion it is helpful and if it serves no purpose, I believe it does not belong. Proceed to solicit other opinions then. --Jiang 02:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As per my comment in the section above (should I move it down here?) there appears at least in the history of my remote corner of the Empire to have been some kind of legal distinction between the status of a Colony and the status of a Crown Colony. The distinction here is that the Mainland Colony, as it's also known, was constituted as a Crown Colony, while "Vancouver's Island" was a Colony (er, um, maybe it was the other way around). The difference may have to do with the elected Executive Council on the Island and the appointed one that launched the Mainland, where Governor Douglas ruled autocratically. Part of the reason for this was the relative lack of British subjects on the Mainland at the time he declared the Colony - unilaterally, and also taking a step outside protocol by contacting Admiral Baynes at the British base in Callao, Peru, to give him a hand (Baynes declined, but eventually was sent there with orders from England in hand).

So Douglas had to appoint who was at hand, and there was no way to call an election, as he had been forced to do on Vancouver Island. That may have been part of the reason for the status and hence the title of Crown Colony, i.e. that it had been constituted by edict rather than by appointment, and the need to avoid responsible government, as such as it was in colonial councils, from functioning and getting in the way of consolidating the British grip on the until-then unincorporated but British-claimed territory, which until then had no legal land-law status within the Empire (the HBC had only a trading license, not title as they had had in the actual watershed of Hudson Bay). Ath the time of incorporation the Mainland was on the lip of American annexation and "something had to be done"; the constitutional difference between the two colonies might be at least partly a result of that.

So anyway, point is there's some kind of constitutional or legal difference between the two; when I find out more (it's in an old correspondence somewhere, from a friend who's a constitutional law expert/professor from years ago) I'll come back and put it here (discussion page; you tell me if it should go on the main page . . . ). But for now, that's my two bits.Skookum1 09:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Cayman not a stage 2

I am a citizen of Cayman and would just like to make a few comments about the information on this page. Our Executive Council (which was renamed the Cabinet in 2003) is elected from the Legislative Assembly, not appointed by the Governor. Elections are held every 4 years, although they can be postponed by the Governor (as can the prime minister of most parliamentary systems.) Also, I would say the term self-governing colony does apply to Cayman. The Governor hardly ever makes news, except when he is receiving a foreign dignitary, or little notices in the paper saying "H.E. The Hon. Gov. Bruce Dinwiddy, CMG will be away until the 23rd of November at a conference for colonial governors in Trinidad. The Hon. Chief Secretary James Ryan will preside as Acting Governor until His Excellency's return," for example." Another example is the recent spat over the EU Tax Savings Directive, to which the Government assembled a team that went to argue the Island's case at the EU Court of First Instance, with no direct involvement by the Governor. Yet another example would be the recent Euro Bank scandal, in which widespread public opinion in Cayman was to throw out our Attorney General, who is an appointee of the Governor. The Governor stood by him, but the Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in him, and he resigned soon after. Just a few examples of how Cayman does not directly fit the Stage 2 category. Also - I should note that there is currently a Constitutional Reform Committee which takes many of these events into account, and that there will be a general election in May in which one of the parties' major platform issues is further self-governance. Travisritch 04:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, good luck to you, Cayman Islanders, but your reference to "a conference for colonial governors in Trinidad" is bizarre and anachronistic. The Governors of Overseas Territories don't attend conferences in London, much less in independent Commonwealth countries, although they are summoned for meetings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is an Overseas Territories Consultative Council, which Chief Ministers, the Premier of Bermuda, and whatever the equivalent is in the Cayman Islands.

Quiensabe 2005-08-24 02:36 UTC.

Renaming the status

This article looks like it'd be a good a place to discuss the steps and when each of the territory was renamed from "colony"/"crown colonies" progressively to "overseas territory". I could only find out that the UK parliament voted in 1997 to rename all "dependent territories/overseas dependencies" as "overseas territories". But when was it enacted in each of the territory? --Kvasir 18:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed gender bias

I have editted the article to remove gender bias toward males. There have been many women who have served as Commissioners/Governors/Administrators. Among these is Louise Savill, a former BIOT Administrator and Deborah Barnes Jones, the Governor of Montserrat. I feel this male bias is disrespectful. - Hoshie.Crat 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar

"Only in Malta was integration ever seriously considered by the British Government, in 1955, but this was later abandoned, while in Gibraltar it was rejected in 1976."

This seems like odd wording. If it was rejected in Gibraltar in 1976 it must have been seriously considered there also. The article says that in the case of Malta integration was considered by the British government, as if Gibraltar considered it themselves but the British government would not have obliged had they asked for integration. There was (and maybe still is, but I think it's defunct), in Gibraltar, an Integration with Britain Party, which even supplied the Chief Minister briefly in the early 70s. So, was integration ever on the cards for Gib or was it really only Malta? Either way, this ought to be clarified. (It's also interesting to note that while Malta went in a different direction and became independent less than 10 years later, Gibraltar is these days probably the most integrated of all British overseas territories, even participating in elections to the European Parliament as part of the South West England regional constituency. Were it not for Spanish objections, it would be quite conceivable that Gib could be given representation a Westminster constituency (although a relatively small one) and retain its House of Assembly as a kind of devolved Parliament, as in Scotland.) — Trilobite (Talk) 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

'Integration for Gibraltar was rejected outright by the UK in 1976' would probably a more accurate description. Roy Hattersley, then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited the Rock and made it plain that it was a non-starter (as was independence). That has remained the case to this day. There is an Integration With Britain Movement, but the Integration With Britain Party is well and truly dead.
Yes, Gibraltar could be more securely attached to the UK in the way you suggest, like Ceuta and Melilla (claimed by Morocco) are with Spain, but it is unlikely. Although local politicians have expressed support for the idea of integration from time to time, even Peter Caruana, the incumbent Chief Minister, whose party's last election manifesto argued against it, most take the view that it's more trouble than it's worth, and the UK (or the FCO) won't agree to it. Quiensabe 2005-24-08 UTC 02:15

British overseas territories part of EU?

Could it be explicitly said whether British overseas territory are part of the European Union? --Abdull 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

See Special member state territories and their relations with the EU for full details. Anyway, here's the short version: Gibraltar is considered a part of the EU as it joined when the rest of UK did. All of other BOTs (including WSBA and ESBA) aren't in the EU. - Hoshie 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarians - UK nationals for EU purposes

I have removed the comment "Gibraltarians are considered UK nationals for EU purposes".

It's a true statement - British overseas territories citizens (BOTCs) connected with Gibraltar are UK nationals for EU purposes, the only BOTCs to have that status on the basis of being BOTC.

However, since 21 May 2002, people in all other British territories bar the Sovereign Base Areas have full British citizenship which they hold alongside BOTC. So because of their British citizenship (and not because of BOTC), persons from Bermuda, St Helena, Cayman Islands etc are also UK nationals for EU purposes.

However the Overseas Territories other than Gibraltar are not part of the EU and do not vote in 'European elections'. JAJ 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign Base Areas

"The term "Overseas territory" has only been used since 2002 ... The term does not apply ... to the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus which are governed by the British military."

According to Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are a British overseas territory on the same basis as any other.

The fact that British overseas territories citizens solely connected with the SBAs are not entitled to British citizenship is irrelevant.

There's no reason I can see why they should be excluded from the article. JAJ 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've updated the intro to take acocunt of that. The FCO also staes they are an overseas territory, although does not list them in the profile section. The SBA article best deals with their unqiue situation. Astrotrain 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Legally and constitutionally they are an Overseas Territory and it's best to mention them in this article. The two main differences I can see are: a. practical jurisdiction is exercised by the MoD rather than the FCO, and b. British Overseas Territories citizens from the SBAs are excluded from British citizenship under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. JAJ 02:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship

I removed the following from the end of the citizenship section:

Other uninhabited territories such as British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

I removed it because, obviously, it doesn't make any sense. If anyone knows what it's supposed to say, have at 'er. FireWorks 05:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I moved this here from Overseas territory of the United Kingdom on behalf of User:JFG - just to clarify, I don't have any particular opinion about what title is correct. CDC (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have minor issues with the content and title of this article – namely, this article should be at UK overseas territories (or initial uppercase, or even Overseas territories (UK)). For example, the UK government 2005 yearbook indicates this term for these territories (e.g., on p. 77; uppercase) and there are more than enough online occurrences otherwise. Apropos, the term is implicit regarding territoriality, and indications in the current article intro are contrary to this. (Bear in mind,, though, UK Sovereign Base Areas, which arguably are not UK OTs.) If there are no objections ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please desist. See [1] Andrew Yong 14:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the proposal nor official mentions elsewhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does Crown colony redirect here?

  • Bermuda isn't a crown colony it still has a House of Assembly. CaribDigita 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Other British possessions were Crown Colonies, e.g. Colony of Vancouver Island.Skookum1 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Crown Colony in the historical context was usually when Britain dissolved almost all sovereignty in a territory. This was usually on the grounds that territories with a sovereign House of Assembly were difficult to manage from abroad. This happened in many countries, but one that comes to mind is Dominica in 1896. CaribDigita 22:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the redirect should be cancelled. Crown Colony status is part of the national history of places as varied as Singapore, New Zealand and the 13 original states of the US. The British overseas territories are a new status invented in the last years of the last century. It's fairly hard to discuss the history fo thsoe places when you redirect to a novel class of British territory, all of them tiny. We've got an old, large and significant historical subject, Crown colonies, that somehow redirects to a new and insignificant subject, British overseas territories. Alan 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to redirect "Crown Colony" to "British Empire"? Matt 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Turks and Caicos Islands

They have just undergone constitutional reform -- since yesterday, their head of government is not Chief Minister any longer, but Premier instead... Does this also mean that T&CI status is at par with Bermuda's now, meaning they have the highest level of self-government possible? If so, the table and descriptions should be adapted to that effect... —Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Empire?

In the first line of the history section of the article there's a reference to the English Empire. Am I right in thinking that there was no English Empire, and this should read British? Ironcorona 08:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It may mean overseas territories originally colonised by the Kingdom of England- ie before 1707- such as Bermuda? Astrotrain 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

History section needs some attention

The "History" section in this article seems to read OK up until the paragraph starting "The term colony implies an extension of...". Then follows a text dump which seems to start the story again from page 1, overlapping, rehashing and elaborating on what's already been said. It almost looks as if it's been copied verbatim from another article or source without any regard to fitting in with what was already there. (It also contains probably the longest paragraph I've ever seen!). Ideally needs some attention. Matt 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

ditto - the following from the history section needs...well...work:
Although Britain itself has seen immigration from these areas (over a far longer time frame), the nature, timing, and size of this non-British settlement, the resulting racial makeups of many of the populations, and both the legacies of racism, slavery, and economic exploitation, on the one hand, and the attitudes, within and without Britain and its territories, to nationality and ethnicity as they relate to race, on the other, mean that the relationship between Britain and some of its remaining settlements is often seen as more analogous to that which had existed between Britain and some of its now independent territories in Africa or Asia, rather than that with the previous North American or Australasian territories
yes - that's a single sentence, not a paragraph! Carre 21:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move suggestion

This page really should be moved to "British Overseas Territories" or "British Overseas Territory" — it is a formal term that requires capitalisation (somewhat akin to United States of America, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or British Army). It is especially the case here as the page makes distinction between an Overseas Territory and other overseas territories such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

Moongate 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Agreed. Matt 01:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC).