The argument is specific and not general. It is not to make a new proposal which removes country completely (four parts) and that I oppose I have no clue where you got that suggestion. It is to follow encyclopedic standards pointed above and follow the standards followed in other UK subdivisions i.e. Name is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. (Notable geographic & political borderings) ::::England  is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants account for more than 83% of the total UK population, whilst its mainland territory occupies most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain. England shares land borders with Scotland to the north and Wales to the west and elsewhere is bordered by the North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, Bristol Channel and English Channel. The capital is... :::: Northern Ireland (, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a country which is part of the United Kingdom, lying in the northeast of Ireland, covering 5,459 square miles (14,139 km²), about a sixth of the island's total area. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the UK Census in April 2001, its population... :::: Wales  (; pronounced ) is a country which is part of the United Kingdom, bordering England to its east, and the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea to its west. It is also an elective region of the European Union. Wales has a population estimated at three million and is a bilingual country, with both Welsh and English having equal status. Personally I think that Wales has the best version. So why does this article not follow that standard? Why does it not use the encyclopedic standard that says that Scotland is a part of the UK within the first sentence? That is the Crux of this issue and the reason that I am involved in this debate. I have provided encyclopedic evidence of this inconsistency can we now correct this and follow the standard provided above?      