He's not upset, he simply likes for things presented as facts to actually be facts and for the representation to fit reality without cherry picking the bits that support the foregone conclusion.
So then England is country and Northern Italy is a cultural and geographical region, without any administrative purpose. Those are facts. But I am confused because those facts are simply verifiable and nobody should react to them in this way.
So let me get this straight -- which French "country" would you compare to England? The one that, by pure chance, happens to overlap with France-the-nation? Izzard's sketch on the tactical deployment of flags comes to mind.
Oh, and what "administrative purpose" binds England so much, considering it doesn't even have its own separated Parliament? Just because you have a west-lothian identity crisis, it doesn't mean the world has to play along.
You are free to refer to UK "countries" in internal matters (and football, of course), but when you go and compare with the rest of the world, you should be as honest as to compare entity-with-UN-seat to entity-with-UN-seat. Otherwise I might as well compare a couple of busy Italian blocks of flats to a Kent farm.
EDIT: I don't make this point out of some particular passion, but because your idea absolves the UK government of abdicating its responsibilities. If there is a density problem in London, enact policies attracting people to other cities, cities that actually need more people and would benefit from expansion. That's what other countries do. Coming up with arbitrary comparisons just to twist facts to this or that agenda is simply dishonest.
Some states has only one country as France you just mentioned. I don't understand why referring to facts you perceive as reality twisting. What's wrong with you?
