|
Tallulah
That's cause to many americans Wales is in England...isn't it??? Lol ;-) Muck |
Here are some thoughts for whatever they are worth...
1. What is the currency of Scotland? Well they use the same coins as they do in England (as they do in Wales and Northern Ireland BTW) but there are separate Scotish bank notes although Bank of England bank notes circulate very freely. As a matter of fact, I have been told to be careful with Scotish banknotes and that many merchants in England will not accept Scotish bank notes (can't vouch how wide spread this is). And the Scots until very very recently retained a £1 bank note. 2. The same is true in Northern Ireland and the thought was merchants outside NI would be even more reluctant to accept NI bank notes. Perhaps this was that pre Euro the Irish currency while called the punt was derived from pound and the first time I visited Ireland in the mid 70's the Irish coins were exactly the same as the British coins even though Irish pounds were supposedly different from British pounds but that changed over time. Anyway there is no danger today of confusing Northern Ireland banknotes for Irish banknotes as Ireland, of course, is now on the euro. But when you purchase something in NI, you are spending what on the international currency market is known as the GBP (Great Britain pound). 3. Wales to the best of my knowledge does not issue separate bank notes and for the most part Bank of England bank notes are the norm.. But in all 4, the coins are the same. You don't even have the backs of the coins being different; they are all minted by the Royal Mint. Now, and perhaps I need help here, the channel Islands such as Jersey use their own currencies called the pound which are equal in value to the GBP but their bank notes are not legal tender in the UK proper... |
saltymuffin:
At this moment, there's no significant difference between Ontario and Scotland (except that Scotland could have its own team in the World Cup if its players could play properly, and there are probably more ethnic Scots in Ontario). There are two differences between Ontario and England, though: - England doesn't have a provincial assembly, or any kind of devolved powers - Apart from a handful of policy wonks, no-one in England gives a stuff. And that, really, is the point. The constitutions of the British Isles(because the UK components' relations with the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles are unusual and highly fluid as well) are forever changing and little cared about. Our system isn't like Australia's, or anyone else's. Our virtually unique history means no-one's ever sat down and decided how we ought to be governed (not even in the Irish Republic). So we simply change the relationships every few decades. Scotland will have a different set of autonomies in 50 years from what it's got today. So might Cornwall. |
Mucky: Since I was once asked, in all earnestness, if England is the capital of Europe, anything's possible!!
With all due respect and to the exclusion of Fodorites(!), the 'average' American can sometimes be a tad tunnel-visioned when it comes to geography! :-) :-) :-) (Now don't all get het up, it's English humour...) As for this post, I really don't know..or care much really, it just is what it is. I refer to Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) as one country and Ireland as another country. In Britain, Wales & Scotland hate England and want to be independent countries - as long as England is paying for it because they don't have a hope of managing it themselves. In Ireland, that bit at the north is a law unto its own and can't make up its mind what country it wants to be - and we're all bored with it now and have long since stopped caring, so they can do what they like as long as they keep playing nicely. |
There are many versions of the pound coin, differing mainly in the design on the reverse (and some of the obverse):
1983 First Issue - Royal Arms 1984 Scottish Thistle 1985 Welsh Leek 1986 Northern Ireland Flax Plant 1987 English Oak Tree 1988 English Royal Arms 1994 Scottish Lion 1995 Welsh Dragon 1996 Northern Ireland - Celtic Cross & Broighter Collar 1997 England - Three Lions 1998 Royal Arms 1999 Scottish Lion 2000 Welsh Dragon 2001 Northern Ireland - Celtic Cross & Broighter Collar 2002 England - Three Lions 2003 - Royal Arms 2003 Patterns (2004-2007 Designs) 2004 - Scotland - Forth Railway Bridge 2005 - Wales - Menai Straits Bridge 2006 - Northern Ireland - Sir John Macneill's Egyptian Arch 2007 - England - Gateshead Millennium Bridge Here's the whole spiel: <b>http://www.24carat.co.uk/2003poundcoinpatternsframe.html</b> |
Tallulah, since you excluded the Fodorites, I won't get all "het up." :-) Unfortunately you are right. Americans who don't travel often aren't very good with geography. If I were to mention that I went to Wales, some would probably think of an animal that swims in the ocean. :-))
|
Thank you very much flanneruk for your 2p! It does seem like the major difference lies in the constitution. the fact that your constitution and the association between "countries" is so loose and easily changed, makes for a very different mind set than in Canada. The Canadian constitution, (though changeable in theory) is almost impossible to change due to the number of parties that would have to agree to do so - it can not simply be voted on in parliament.
This locks us into a predetermined pattern, and makes any sort of change in association between provinces near impossible. (Hense the dissatisfaction of Quebec, and other parts of the country). |
Talking of which, there's a whale actually swimming in London
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4631396.stm Sorry about the big URL Tinyurl seems to be down today |
What I have learned this morning:
Country, nation, and state are words with different meanings to those in the UK, while they all mean the same thing to me. Sort of like the eskimos and their many words for snow. |
To follow up on saltymuffin's question:
People are entitled to move freely (to seek work or education) between all the EU member states (though the most recent central and East European members are still in a transitional regime, so it's not yet totally true for them). But even before that, the UK and Ireland remained a free trade area and citizens of the Republic were and are entirely free to live and vote in the UK as though they were UK citizens. Citizens of other Commonwealth countries are still entitled to vote in UK elections if they live in the UK (though they are subject to immigration restrictions to actually get to live here). The fact that the different component countries/nations/whatever of the UK have a different sense of their identity, and different governance arrangements does not affect freedom of movement within the UK. The things that are different in the different parts of the UK are specifically defined by Act of the (Westminster) Parliament, though there would probably be hell to pay if they ever tried to go back on it. Northern Ireland, as ever, excepted. |
The conventional distinction is that "country" is a geographic distinction, "nation" is a cultural one, and "state" is a political one. Kingdom, Principality, Province, federal, unitary... all are political nomenclature.
As for folks from N. Ireland referring to themselves as "British," it's pretty much the same as people from Hawaii calling themselves "American." They're not wrong, any more than they would be by calling themselves "Irish" or "Hawaiian." If you don't think these distinctions are a big deal in Europe and around the world, go visit Barcelona or Bilbao. |
saltymuffin: You ask how the status of Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia differ from that of Scotland. I think that flanneruk has given you some differences. Once again, the UK is not a federation. There is no English assembly or parliament.
More importantly, the process in the UK is called devolution for a very good reason: Parliament has devolved some of its powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Acts of Parliament, and Parliament can change these as well. For example, in 2002 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland suspended the Northern Irish Assembly and resumed direct rule from London. Can you imagine that happening to a Canadian province? The powers which each assembly has are different from each other as well. Scotland, for example, has very limited taxation powers--it can increase the rate of taxation up to 3 percent, and that's it. Quite different from the taxation powers of B.C., Ontario and Quebec, or any other Canadian province. As you noted, the Canadian constitution is not easily changed, and the status of provinces can certainly not be changed unilaterally by the federal government. Sorry for the lecture in political science, but you did ask. |
No apology necessary - most illuminating. Thanks to everyone for taking the time and effort.
|
> In the Olympics, the United Kingdom competes as one body. Just like the United States, or Argentina or Iceland etc, etc. <
Well, actually, the United States does not compete as one body in the Olympics. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands all have their own teams. |
laverendrye, this is the exact kind of information I was hoping for! No need for an apology at all!
If I am understanding correctly, it seems that politically, the UK is even more centrally governed than Canada - London appears to have substantially more powers than Ottawa. In this regard I don't think that anyone can argue the fact that the UK is a single "state". On the other hand, these individual "countries" have much more solid historical and cultural national identities than Canadian Provinces (with the exception of Quebec), so at a cultural level, it is far more of a Union of individual countries than Canada is. And the fact that England has no individual government of its own is even more revealing as to the exact nature of this "union" . . . And to think, I had always thought that the Quebec/Canada issue was a complicated one! It seems downright straight forward in comparison! |
"London appears to have substantially more powers than Ottawa"
Not so. The Westminster Parliament is not supreme. Its laws have to conform to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) - though we can quit the convention, or suspend the applicability of some clauses. And Parliament can legislate only on those matters not claimed by Brussels - and it's not at all clear whether we can actually ever get out of that. Some estimates are that 60% of all regulations in Britain now come from Acts passed as a result of European legislation. This directly relates to the subject in hand. Scotland and Wales have had more autonomy given them since the UK became subject to shared sovereignty. We were relaxed about bringing the NI Assembly back after abolishing its predecessor in the 1970s because the ECHR meant the Assembly's Protestant majority could never pass the torrent of discriminatory legislation that provoked the Catholic intifada in the first place. The fact that the IRA's political wing then proceeded to sabotage the Assembly anyway is a complication that needn't detain us. Trying to equate constitutional matters in the British Isles to anywhere else on earth just gets everyone confused. The UK really is a post-modern state: the non-European English-speaking countries are, in many ways, the last survivors of 19th century theories aout independent nation states. |
Very, very interesting. I understand exactly what you are saying. Since London has to work within the confines of the EU, it has far less power to begin with than Ottawa or Washington. Meaning the powers than can be handed to the "countries" are further diluted, and it does make it hard to make comparisons between Scotland and Quebec. They are absolutely on different playing fields!
I now also more fully understand why the term "devolution" is used. This term is used in Canada when refering to First Nations people moving towards self government. Interesting comparison. |
Simply put:
Scotland is a COUNTRY. It has its own coinage, law, and courts. Sovereign power is invested in Queen Elizabeth of SCOTLAND, which means, as amended by law, Scotland had its own line of Royal Succession (since merged with England) It is part of the United Kingdom (get it- it's united under ONE MONARCH), and since it shares a Sovereign with England and Wales issues like foreign policy, defense, etc. are handled by Her Majesty's Government, headquartered in London. Some issues are granted to a sub-Parliament in Edinburgh, but this is a very recent development. Ontario is a PROVINCE. It is a portion of a larger country, the Dominion of Canada. Sovereign Power is technically invested in Queen Elizabeth of CANADA, represented by the Governor General in Ottawa and by the Lt. Governor in Toronto. In practice, however, there is popular soverignty at the Provincial and Federal levels and Canada has responsibility for its own coinage, laws, courts, and foreign affairs. The Canadian Constitution of 1982 spells out the rights and responsibilities of Ontario as part of the Canadian Federation. New York is a STATE. It enjoys popular sovereignty and as a ratifier of the United States Constitution subjects itself to restrictions on conducting its own foreign affairs, coinage, and some laws. It has considerable rights to structure its laws and lawmaking bodies, as long as they are republican in character. It can create its own courts and laws and change their structure without Federal approval. |
It doesn't sound that simple to me QC!
All of the Commonwealth countries share the same monarch, but that does not make them part of the United Kingdom. It is Scotland's political affiliation with England that makes it part of the UK, not its monarch. Ontario also has its own courts and laws. And it seems, more individual powers than Scotland, but as you say, it is a province, and not a country. New York is no more a "sovereign state" than Ontario or Scotland. It is now a different type of state altogether. I think it is all a lot murkier than it initally appears . . . |
I think I once related this story on another thread...
Back in the 70's when I first started visiting the UK, upon getting off the plane at Heathrow there were 3 queues at immigration, UK, Commonwealth, Others. Now there are 2....EU & Swiss and then others. Anyway about 1 1/2 years ago, I was travelling to London by way of Frankfurt. Our plane arrived at Heathrow just after another flight carrying scores of young people from Ghana who were seeking to come into the UK on temporary student visas which required a great deal of processing by the immigration officers and the queue on the others lane was moving very slowly. So we were moving agonizingly slowly and behind me was this Canadian who had travelled to London with his girl friend from Germany. Anyway, after waiting for about 3/4 of an hour, she comes down (she walked right through on the EU queue) looking for him and he shoults out to her well here I am a member of the Commonwealth waiting on this long queue but the Germans, England's long time enemy walk right through. A great line you must agree. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:02 PM. |