Legal Definition of "Great Britain"

Question

Great Britain is the geographical name of the largest island in the British Isles (sometimes inclusive of the smaller islands on its insular shelf) but the name has, at least in the past, also been used as the name for a political entity or entities.

The 1707 Act of Union created a new kingdom by combining the previous Kingdom of England with the previous Kingdom of Scotland and naming that new political entity the Kingdom of Great Britain.

However in 1801 a further Act of Union created a new kingdom by combining the previous Kingdom of Great Britain with the previous Kingdom of Ireland, so that the territory of the new kingdom was no longer co-terminous with the island of Great Britain as it previously had been (if you include the smaller islands on the insular shelf).

The phrase Great Britain (without being prefixed with the word Kingdom) is of course used today to refer to the British Islands as a whole - as in Team GB - but there is some discussion about how correct it is to use Great Britain in this way. What is correct usage in the English language is not primarily or only a legal question but if a word has a specific defined legal meaning that can be part of the argument as to what general usage is correct/desirable. So that is the context but my question is the narrow legal question:

Does the phrase Great Britain have a precise legal meaning over and above its purely geographical meaning - for example is it defined in any statute in any of the six legal jurisdictions of the British Islands?

Note: Official publications often use loose language. For example the Ordnance Survey blog states:

Great Britain is the official collective name of of England, Scotland and Wales and their associated islands.

which is ambiguous but at first sight looks as if might be talking about a definition of Great Britain as a political term but elsewhere the OS are quoted as saying that:

Great Britain is the official collective name for the landmass encompassing England, Scotland and Wales and their associated islands.

making clear that it is the geographical Great Britain which is being referred to.

And dictionary definitions vary but my question is specifically about any statutory legal definition.

Answer 1

It does not need to be expressly defined in statute in order to be legally effective. Courts have no trouble interpreting ordinary words used in their conventional way. And there is no other definition that could work instead, considering the full body of law that (1) intends to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, (2) often distinguishes between "Great Britain" and "Northern Ireland", (3) often distinguishes between "England", "Wales", "Scotland" and "Northern Ireland", (4) treats "Great Britain" as synonymous with England, Wales and Scotland, and (5) often uses "Great Britain" without further ceremony, as if it's a term that doesn't need to be explained.

It is helpful that legislation (at least in the modern era) is consistent about the view that "Great Britain" refers precisely to England, Wales and Scotland all together. By virtue of the Interpretation Act 1978,

"United Kingdom" means Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

from which we may deduce immediately that Great Britain means the United Kingdom except for Northern Ireland. There is no sibling '"Great Britain" means...' clause, but construing it any other way than the normal meaning would not work. From the combined definitions of "England", "Wales", "British Islands", etc. - which by reference, also deal with such historically doubtful areas as Berwick and Monmouthshire - there is no other way to interpret the term "Great Britain" without distorting the required meaning of "United Kingdom". Including too much or too little in "Great Britain" would give the wrong result, in particular for statutory extent clauses that refer to the whole United Kingdom and ought not to accidentally leave out Cornwall or include Hanover.

We do not need to go as far as the Acts of Union, which is lucky since that would entangle us in concerns about whether "England" includes "Wales", or other historical anomalies that are not relevant in current law. I would treat the Acts of Union as giving added force to the conventional meaning, rather than being the source of that meaning, since there are uses of the term which seem to be more about Great Britain considered as a place than the political entity. For example, the Food Safety Act 1990 s.18(3) talks about "any food which has not previously been used for human consumption in Great Britain", which seems to talk more about the food culture of the place, even predating the Acts of Union, than about the Kingdom of Great Britain or its successors.

The term "Great Britain" is frequently used in statutes in the customary way. For example,

• The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 s.28 creates a "Great Britain register" and a "Northern Ireland register" of political parties, and s.38(1)(3)(b) provides for the "Great Britain register" to cover precisely England, Scotland and Wales.
• The Northern Ireland Act 1998 s.87 is about provisions of UK social security law that operate differently in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
• The Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) provides for the issue of "GB certificates" as opposed to "NI certificates", and also defines "the relevant part of Great Britain" as meaning either "England and Wales" or "Scotland" (s.32M(1)).
• The Agriculture Act 2020 s.35 provides for a "red meat levy" to be paid between "one country in Great Britain" and "another such country", and goes on in 35(8) to list the levy bodies for England, Scotland and Wales.

So all of this points to the same common meaning as in everyday life. In court, for example, Lord Hoffman in Serco v Lawson [2006] UKHL 3 had to consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 s.196, since repealed, which governed "work wholly or mainly outside Great Britain". (And by the way, in 196(1)(b) is a listing of "England and Wales" and "Scotland" as the two possible bodies of law relating to Great Britain.) In his judgement, he says:

It is true that section 244(1) says that the Act "extends" to England and Wales and Scotland ("Great Britain"). But that means only that it forms part of the law of Great Britain and does not form part of the law of any other territory (like Northern Ireland or the Channel Islands) for which Parliament could have legislated.

That is, he does not find it difficult to gloss the extent provision in 244(1), which doesn't include the exact words "Great Britain", as actually referring to Great Britain.

Other legislation refers to "Great Britain" as a locale, like the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 which talks about "an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain". This is a straightforward reference to the kind of activities typically going on in that location, treating it as the island(s) and not the political entity. The expression does not include the territorial sea, by default; some statutes include it, like the Gas Act 1986 s.5(9) which says:

For the purposes of this section a place is within the jurisdiction of Great Britain if it is in Great Britain, in the territorial sea adjacent to Great Britain or in an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.

There are several other instances of particular statutes defining "Great Britain" to include adjacent waters, but they do not define the core concept of Great Britain otherwise. They do not need to.

Answer 2

Is it defined in any statute?

Yes: by Article 1 of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 (not to be confused with the Amendment Act of 1707) which according to legislation.gov has not been repealed so is still "good law":

That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew be conjoyned in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land.

My understanding of the two Acts of Union 1800 with Ireland (in force in 1801) is that they created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (the latter changing to Northern Ireland after Eire independence) and so maintained the extant definition and use of "Great Britain".

And for interest, some light reading on the difference between UK, Great Britain and the British Isles courtesy of the Ordnance Survey.

Answer 3

Short Answer - Not Really

International treaties used Great Britain to refer to the whole state up until the early 20th Century and the term, and its French language equivalent Grande Bretagne is to this day widely used by British officials - example - but I think that falls short of a precise legal definition particularly as it is sometimes unclear whether Great Britain is being used to mean just the UK - the state recognised in international law - or the UK plus Mann and the Channel Islands which the UK sometimes enters into treaties on behalf of.

Whenever Great Britain is used in statutes of the UK Parliament it appears to be using the term as a geographical name for the island of Great Britain (plus or minus the islands on its insular shelf). Some people think they detect in statutes passed in 1800, 1927 and 1978 an implication that some kind of political entity exists whose territory is the island of Great Britain plus the islands on its insular shelf - i.e. some kind of political left-over from the 18th Century Kingdom of Great Britain but I think this reading of those statutes is incorrect.

So I conclude that whilst Great Britain is widely used in a political sense to mean the British Islands as a whole, it does not have a precise legal meaning (beyond the ordinary geographical meaning as the name of an island).

Long Answer

International treaties used Great Britain to refer to the whole state up until the early 20th Century. Often Great Britain is in the title of the treaty as the name of the state without the words United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland appearing at all - see here, here, here, here, here and here. Where the words United Kingdon of Great Britain and Ireland do appear in a treaty that is usually because the treaty has been entered into by the monarch herself - Her Britannic Majesty - and the words appear as part of her title (along with Empress of India) - see here, here and here.

Even where United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is indicated as the contracting party in a treaty, when the signed treated is presented to Parliament in a command paper the short title assigned will often be Treaty between Great Britain and... as in this example so for a very long time Parliament has been using Great Britain to mean not just England, Wales and Scotland but the entire state.

Treaties entered into during the time of the Irish War of Independence refer to the contracting party as Great Britain with no mention of any part of Ireland at all - example and those entered into immediately after the Anglo-Irish treaty - when the final outcome was unclear - may simply United Kingdom as the name of the contracting state - see here.

Up until about 1953 sometimes treaties were entered into in the name of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (example) and sometimes in the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (example) but as far as I can see United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is used consistently after 1953.

So Great Britain was the everyday term used by the government for the UK, or possibly for all the British Islands, but I am not sure that really counts as a precise legal definition.

Act of Union 1800

By the Acts of Union 1800 the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland united to become the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Some people see in the name Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland an indication that there is a extant political entity Great Britain whose territory is the same as the previous Kingdom of Great Britain but it is difficult to see what such a political entity could actually be. Great Britain has never been the name of a legal jurisdiction and with the creation of the UK, the Parliament of Great Britain, responsible only for the island of Great Britain (and its insular shelf) ceased to exist as a sperate entity.

I believe the flaw in this theory is the assumption that if a political entity is called A and B then A and B must themselves be political subdivisions of the entity. In fact it it extremely common for a state to name itself after an island or more than one island and the names of the islands do not thereby become separate political entities. The state known as St Vincent and the Grenadines has the names of two islands (or rather an island and an island range) in its title but that does not thereby make the Grenadines a separate political entity. St Vincent is in fact used as a political term but only as a short title for the whole state not as a political sub-division.

Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927

This Act was passed after the creation of the Irish Free State as a Dominion outside the UK so that the territory of the UK was reduced. The first section authorises the King to change his style by proclamation. Section 2 deals with the title of Parliament:-

2 Alteration of the style of Parliament.

(1) Parliament shall hereafter be known as and styled the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and accordingly, the present Parliament shall be known as the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, instead of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

(2) In every Act passed and public document issued after the passing of this Act the expression " United Kingdom " shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Some people suggest that sub-section 2(2) defines a political entity named Great Britain distinct from, but co-terminous with, the island of Great Britain but surely, in context, the purpose of s2(2) is much simpler. Parliament is changing its name from the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Section 2(2) simply says that where the simple two word phrase United Kingdom is used then unless the context otherwise requires it is assumed to mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

The government minster sponsoring the Bill in parliament made clear its limited purpose:

The Government have decided at the same time to make provision for a change in the title of Parliament, which was enacted by the Act for the Union of Great Britain with Ireland under the style of "Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." For the reasons which I have already given the use of the expression "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is no longer appropriate. The Irish Free State is not represented in the same Parliament as Great Britain while Northern Ireland, in addition to being represented in this Parliament, is subject in many matters to its legislative authority and has remained in all respects an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Government are advised by their appropriate advisers in such matters that it would be in accordance with the constitutional position that Parliament should henceforth be known as the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That description has the advantage of corresponding with the facts. The Bill does not in any way, of course, affect the constitution of Parliament but merely alters its name to bring it into correspondence with the facts. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Some people argue that in the 1927 Act Northern Ireland cannot refer to a geographical extent because it is inaccurate (Northern Ireland does not actually include all of the North of the island) and so it must be used as a political term (the name of a legal jurisdiction) and so Great Britain must also be being used in a political rather than a geographical sense. But in the context of the 1921 Anglo Irish Treaty it makes perfect sense to use the term Northern Ireland to define a geographical extent.

Under the treaty the Irish Free State was created as a new Dominion whose territory was the whole island of Ireland with its parliament in Dublin and a devolved Parliament in Belfast. Under the terms of the treaty the Northern Ireland Parliament could opt out and re-join the UK - which it did - and thereafter a joint Boundary Commission would determine the boundary of Northern Ireland. The work of the Boundary Commission was delayed by the Irish Civil War and and from the start it was controversial. It did not report until 1925 and, in the event its findings proved to be so politically sensitive that all parties agreed in December 1925 not to implement it but to agree that the initial provisional boundary should instead also be the final boundary:

1.—The powers conferred by the proviso to Article 12 of the said Articles of Agreement on the Commission therein mentioned are hereby revoked, and the extent of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of the said Articles of Agreement shall be such as was fixed by sub-section (2) of section one of that Act.

The agreement was formally registered with the League of Nations on 8 February 1926.

Thus, with that background, Northern Ireland was, in 1927, understood as being a very precisely defined geographical area and it makes sense that the term would be used, together with Great Britain to indicate the reduced territory of the United Kingdom.

Interpretation Act 1978

This Act simply repeals the words "Act passed" in section 2(2) of the 1927 Act and re-enacts the definition along with other general definitions

"United Kingdom" means Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So this is simply a tiding up measure. Previously the default meaning of United Kingdom in both Acts and public documents was defined in the 1927 Act. Now the definition for public documents remains in the 1927 Act but the definition for Acts moves to the Interpretation Act 1978 along with all the other default definitions applying to Acts. The actual default definition is unchanged.

There is also the point - albeit rather a technical point - that only United Kingdom is defined by the IA 1978. Great Britain even if it were used in a political sense in IA 1978 would still not actually be defined by IA 1978 as a default definition for the future.

An Interpretation Act, like all Acts, must itself be interpreted but there is an important distinction between:

1. What a word - any word - means within the particular Interpretation Act

2. The terms which are actually defined by the Interpretation Act to be default meanings for future Acts.

Take an example (this example works in British English - I hope it works in other varieties of English as well)...

The word cash can mean

A. coins (rather than banknotes)

B. coins and banknotes (rather than bank deposits)

C. coins, banknotes, and bank deposits (rather than gold bars or shares)

If, in an Interpretation Act, it is says

"money" means cash and bank deposits

Then "money" is defined as meaning that, by default, in future Acts (point 2 above).

When understanding (interpreting) the Interpretation Act itself - point 1 above - you go through the process of working out what cash means and that is not difficult - it obviously has meaning B. But the fact that cash has meaning B in the Interpretation Act and is used in the process of defining a term (money) as a term with a default meaning for the future, does not, of course, mean that cash itself is defined for the future as always having meaning B. If cash is used in future it could have any of the meanings A, B or C depending on context.

So when the Interpretation Act 1978 says

"United Kingdom" means Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

That defines "United Kingdom" with a default meaning for the future, but it does not define "Great Britain" for the future.

It seems clear that Great Britain in the above sentence is being used in a geographical sense but even if, hypothetically, it were being used in some kind of political sense to mean a political entity co-terminous with the geographical island of Great Britain and its insular shelf, such a usage would not constitute a legal definition for the future.

Conclusion

So I would conclude that whilst Great Britain is widely used in a political sense to mean the British Islands, it does not have a precise legal meaning (beyond the ordinary geographical meaning as the name of an island).

Answer 4

Yes

Great Britain is the official collective name of England, Scotland and Wales and their associated islands. It does not include the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or any part of Northern Island or the Republic of Ireland. This is both a political designation and a geographic one.

Britain is a purely geographic name and refers to the largest island in Great Britain. The British Isles is a geographic name for Britain, Ireland and their associated islands.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a political entity consisting of what it says on the tin.

All of these are legal definitions, in that, if they were used in a statute or contract, that’s what they mean.