One of the greatest empires that ever existed is that of the British Empire. With colonies all over the world including Africa, India, and even the holy land, all fell under British rule or occupation. British History can include the history of all those colonies that were ruled by and or influenced by the British. Before expanding the scope too far it's important to look at British History where it first began and in its own geographical origin. It was only in 1707 in the Parliamentary Union where the creation of Britain came about. So does that mean that British History is only the events that happened after 1707? How do historians approach this? Which countries are included in "British History" and how is that justified? These are just some of the questions that historians have to address. J. G. Pocock tries to address some of these issues in his article " British History: A Plea for a New Subject." with much of his emphasis on the terminology that is used in describing "British" History. Taking a more recent look at the status of "British" History, Raphael Samuel, tries to assess the history of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales in his article "British Dimensions: Four Nations History." His interpretation (Four-Nations) of "British History" is really an expression of retreat of "empire" which is really "post-colonial" discourse.
Pocock uses "British history" for lack of a better term. It is used to recognize the plural history of a group of cultures situated along an Anglo Celtic frontier and marked by an increasing English political and cultural domination. He identifies the deficiencies as being with the terminology traditionally used to describe British History. In addition to agreement with Taylor's theory that the term "British" is essentially incorrect he proposes a new word to describe the inhabitants of Scotland; the "Scotch" instead of the term more commonly used "Scots.
