3 ms·
I don't understand. It's an article about England. They only have information to hand about England, from the authority tasked with dealing with health in Engla
by alibarber 2mo ago
I don't understand. It's an article about England. They only have information to hand about England, from the authority tasked with dealing with health in England.
If I read an article from them about crime in London, quoting the Metropolitan Police, I don't immediately think that they don't care about, say, the West Midlands.
- tavavex 2mo agoThe mistake they made is to directly say "one of the first countries" in the article title, which immediately implies a comparison to foreign countries. But clearly, since they're talking about England, which is a subdivision of the UK, why aren't they comparing this achievement to equivalent subdivisions, such as states or provinces, in other nations instead? This isn't a direct comparison (which might also make it an unfair one), so it makes sense why people would misread them by assuming that this is an error and that they meant to compare equivalents.
- venzaspa 2mo agoEngland and Scotland are separate countries, the UK is a federation of them both.
- dghf 2mo agoPoint of pedantry: federation usually implies a federal government, and the UK is a unitary state.
- tavavex 2mo agoThe UK is a unitary state. Even if it were a federation, the equivalent to your statement is something like "Ontario and Quebec are separate provinces, and Canada is a federation that includes them". These are by definition subdivisions of a country. Just because the UK has a special definition of the word country that doesn't apply to anything else doesn't make England or Scotland rise to the nationhood that's implied by this word in every other case.