|
Scotland's monarchy did not "merge" with England's. The Scottish King James VI, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, inherited the throne of England from his mother's cousin, Elizabeth in 1603. This created Great Britain, but each country was completely separate politically until the Union of the Parliaments in 1707.
Scotland cannot be compared to Ontario or New York or whatever because Ontario , New York, etc were never sovereign states. Scotland was, until the union of 1707, when she "united" with England. You could to some extent compare Scotland with Hawaii. |
Saltymuffin, three hundred years ago give or take King James VI of Scotland became the heir to the English throne. He became King James I of England, and for a time he was both King James I and King James VI. Same guy, two kingdoms. Called the "Union of the Crowns." Thus, "United Kingdom."
Later, the Scottish Parliament, which had been in existance for a long time, merged itself with the English Parliament, with Scotland adding a number of Members of Parliament to the English ones already there. That's called the "Union of the Parliaments." (It was not a popular move in Scotland, BTW.) Thus Queen Elizabeth II is really Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland, since QEI (England) reigned before James VI/I. Get it? |
I do think I am beginning to understand Gardyloo!
I realise that Scotland was, at one point a sovereign state. But, due to the merging of the English and Scottish Parliaments, they are joined as the United Kingdom. It is really the merging of parliaments that made England and Scotland one state, not the fact that they share a Monarch (which is what I understood QC to be saying). Now, the fact that Scotland once again has its own Parliament does not make it a sovereign state, as this parliament is limited by London in what it can and can not do - making it more like an american state or provincial gov't. However, unlike most states and provinces, Scotland used to be its own state, so perceptions are different. AND since the UK is part of the EU, the difference in powers between the Scottish and Belgian parliaments aren't really that huge. |
>Country, nation, and state... all mean the same thing to me.<
Hmmmmmm. The Kurdish Nation is a minority in at least two Countries, and is unlikely to ever get a State of it's own. ((I)) |
"All of the Commonwealth countries share the same monarch, but that does not make them part of the United Kingdom."
Correct. "It is Scotland's political affiliation with England that makes it part of the UK, not its monarch." Incorrect. Elizabeth II's title of Queen of Scotland is what makes it part of the UK, along with the Act of Union. Both function together. "Ontario also has its own courts and laws." Not in the same way that New York or Scotland do. Scotland has DIFFERENT LAW than England. Really different. Ontario and British Columbia have differing laws, but do not have differing LEGAL SYSTEMS. Scottish law is a different system, like the difference between Ontario (British Civil Law) and Quebec (Napoleonic Code). "And it seems, more individual powers than Scotland, but as you say, it is a province, and not a country." This is because the Canadian Constituion gives provinces considerable powers that other similar jurisdictions do not have. "New York is no more a "sovereign state" than Ontario or Scotland." Incorrect. "It is now a different type of state altogether." There are a lot of subtleties to the US System, this is one of them. New York is a sovereign state- the Head of State is George Pataki, Governor. That's why he has the power to call out the state militia- The New York State Army. You may know it as the NY National Guard. Can the premier of Ontario call in his own troops? Pataki can. He even has an Air Force. It is theoretically possible for New York to invade Connecticut. This actually happened in the 1780's. Who in Scotland could call in troops? There is no Scottish Executive Authority, the First Minister doesn't control any armed forces. Anyway, all soldiers in the UK swear an oath to THE QUEEN (and her heirs). If it came to it, she could personally command the Army to refuse commands from the Scottish First Minister or even from Tony Blair. It would be a Constitutional Crisis, but technically if they disobeyed they would be guilty of treason. In the USA, soldiers swear an oath to the FEDERAL CONSITUTION. They have no personal obligation to George Bush, but obey his orders because of respect for the chain of command and the law. If they disobey him it is a crime but not treason. "However, unlike most states and provinces, Scotland used to be its own state," Incorrect. At least four US States were once separate nations (Vermont, Hawaii, California, and Texas). "so perceptions are different. AND since the UK is part of the EU, the difference in powers between the Scottish and Belgian parliaments aren't really that huge." No, no, no, no, no. Subordinate legislatures differ GREATLY in power depending on how their soverignty is constituted. The difference in powers between Brussels and Edinburgh is ENORMOUS. Brussels can: 1. Declare war 2. Draft troops 3. Partition the country or add territory or join with other states 4. Confirm treaties with other states 5. Make law for all of Belgium or for part of Belgium 6. Vote at the UN Scotland can't do ANY of those things. |
Argh!!! And I just thought I was getting a handle on things!
I do realise that some states were once Sovereign (I did say "most"), and Quebec and Newfoundland might argue the same. So, QC, you are saying that New York would have the most power, then Scotland, then Ontario? The fact that Quebec has a different lagal system to Ontario, doesn't give it any more powers, it just happens to use a different system. But both must obay laws made in Ottawa, just as Scotland falls under many of the laws made in London, correct? But in the end, it seems to be that the most important statement is your last. None of Scotland, Ontario or New York can do as Brussels and: 1. Declare war 2. Draft troops 3. Partition the country or add territory or join with other states 4. Confirm treaties with other states 5. Make law for all of Belgium or for part of Belgium 6. Vote at the UN It is the UK, Canada and the US that do these things. So really, Scotland, Ontario and NewYork are no more "sovereign" than one another, they just have differing powers. |
And according to some sources, UK is not a Europe ??
|
It's funny that Wales and Scotland have their own Parliaments and a degree of local autonomy (Northern Ireland i believe is currently governed directly from Westminster until a political solution is accepted by all parties,i could be wrong)
but that England does not have its own Parliament. What gives - are the English second-class citizens in their onw 'country?' |
Please, QC and everyone - at least in this context, where wordsmithing is rampant (like some lions) use "state" or "nation-state" if you mean an independent political state (not "State" in the sense of Oregon or Yucatan.) There are plenty of nations that do not currently enjoy statehood - Kurds, Catalans... remember "nation" is a cultural and to some degree demographic term. Like in Seahawks Nation. ;)
When the United <b>States</b> was conceived, it was seen as being a much looser (con-)federation of independent states. It was only after the Federal Constitution was ratified by the individual States that the current federal structure was established. In Canada, it was an act of the UK Parliament in 1867 that established the various provinces and the federal structure (the British North America Act or BNA, now the Constitution Act.) Up to then the individual provinces (which were provinces of the UK, not Canada) for instance, even issued their own postage stamps. |
Ira, I totally admit my ignorance on all of this, but I have never heard (or processed it if I did hear) of the Kurdish people referred to as a nation. I have heard them referred to as a "people", an ethnic group within various nations, countries, or states, which until today were terms I used interchangeably. Gardyloo's distinctions make sense to me, but I have never had occasion before today to distinguish the terms in that fashion.
|
Nearly had a heart attack reading the list of what "Brussels" can do, till I realised that's what the Brussels that's the capital of Belgium can do, not the institutions of the EU!
And I don't think it's the case that a national parliament can only legislate in areas that are "not claimed" by the EU; they legislate separately for areas that have not been made the subject of EU procedures, by a treaty (which has to be ratified). There are weaknesses in how Westminster scrutinises what our government does when it's taking part in EU legislation, but that's a side effect of our own constitutional inheritance, to put it as uncontroversially as I can. |
Very interesting, I have always wondered about this.
What does it say in your passport? Is there a differentiation between English, Scottish, Welsh and (Northern) Irish in a British Passport? I presume you can move freely from Scotland to England without any paperwork . . . Although Scotland has its own parliament, aren't there "national" laws and taxes that apply in both places? I always assumes (very possibly wrongly) that the Scottish Parliament was similar to a Canadian Provincial or US State government??? What exactly is London the capital of?? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: cambe Date: 01/20/2006, 09:53 am In 1707, an Act of Union joined the parliaments of England and Scotland and they became became the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' (Wales was never a Kingdom). In 1801, under a new Act of Union, this kingdom merged with the Kingdom of Ireland The new kingdom was called the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. In 1922, 26 of Ireland's 32 counties gained independence to form a separate Irish Free State. Since then it has been known as the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. N'Ireland is not part of 'Great Britian' On the whole (but not always), protestants in NI refer to themselves as British and hold a British passport. Catholics (again not always) refer to themselves as Irish and hold an Irish passport. The Irish Republic is a separate country. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 09:54 am Just to clairify - when I said "move freely" from Scotland to England, I didn't mean travel, but actually relocate, live and work, and that your taxation / social services would follow you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 09:55 am So in Northern Ireland you can choose which passport you hold? British or Irish? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: ira Date: 01/20/2006, 09:58 am >In 1707, an Act of Union joined the parliaments of England and Scotland and they became became the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' (Wales was never a Kingdom). < Well, how did Wales get caught up in this? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: oldie Date: 01/20/2006, 10:00 am Yes, people can move freely between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Stuff like social security will follow you. There will be differences in certain legal things like buying a house, because the Scottish legal system is different from the one in England and Wales. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 10:03 am In the Olympics, the United Kingdom competes as one body. Just like the United States, or Argentina or Iceland etc, etc. So it seems that it is one "nation state" with a rather complicated internal organisation. (Not that unusual!). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: oldie Date: 01/20/2006, 10:07 am Wales is the only one that was conquered. Ireland and Scotland joined the Union of their own free will. Don't lets get into pantomime exchanges of "Oh, no they didn't!" We all know the stuff about "passles of rogues". If you look at the Union Flag, sometimes called the "Union Jack", you'll see that it is made up of three flags superimposed. The cross of St George, patron saint of England since the 1270's, is a red cross on a white ground. After James I succeeded to the throne, it was combined with the cross of St. Andrew in 1606. The cross saltire of St Andrew, patron saint of Scotland, is a diagonal white cross on a blue ground. The cross saltire of St Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, is a diagonal red cross on a white ground. This was combined with the previous Union Flag of St George and St Andrew, after the Act of Union of Ireland with England (and Wales) and Scotland on 1 January 1801, to create the Union Flag that has been flown ever since. The Welsh dragon does not appear on the Union Flag. This is because when the first Union Flag was created in 1606, the Principality of Wales by that time was already united with England and was no longer a separate principality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Robespierre Date: 01/20/2006, 10:08 am Yes, it's just like the United States. They even have "state pound coins" just like our quarters. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 10:11 am Thanks oldie! The whole thing really sounds quite similar to Canada - seeing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as Provinces. Well actually it sounds like England and Scotland are like Provinces. Wales and Northern Ireland sort of sound like Territories, if they don't have their own gov't. In Canada there are "Federal" laws and taxes, but there are also Provincial laws and taxes, and things do differ between Provinces. For example Provinces are responsible for Education, Health care Property law, and natural resources. The federal or Canadaian gov't is responsible for criminal law, transportation, trade, money, defence, etc, etc. So buying a house, to use the same example, can have quite different legal implications in Quebec than Nova Scotia or Alberta. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: lordofthejungle Date: 01/20/2006, 10:11 am That might be so in Olympics but in Cricket its the England and Wales Cricket Board, Scotland has its own cricket/football/rugby teams, Wales has its own football/rugby team.....NrIreland is still a debate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: lordofthejungle Date: 01/20/2006, 10:18 am saltymuffin, as per my earlier post, it is interesting as head of ''State'' for canada is the Queen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 10:29 am lordofthejungle, Yes, the Queen is the "head of State" in Canada, in that case "State" refers to the "nation state" Canada, nothing to do with the United Kingdom. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all have the Queen of England as their Queen, but there is no political connection between the countries themselves. Could we say that the United Kingdom is a "Nation state"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: oldie Date: 01/20/2006, 10:33 am Wales does have a devolved parliament but with fewer powers than the Scottish one. NI is supposed to have an Assembly but it has been suspended until the major parties can decide to work together. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: ira Date: 01/20/2006, 10:37 am >Could we say that the United Kingdom is a "Nation state"? < We could, but would we be correct? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: laverendrye Date: 01/20/2006, 10:45 am There is no such thing as the "Queen of England". With regard to Canada, Queen Elizabeth II is officially head of state and "Queen of Canada", or to use the complete royal style, as regards Canada: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". I would also note, that despite recent measures of devolution, the UK is by no means a federal state, as are the United States, Canada and Australia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 10:59 am laverendrye, you say that the UK is NOT a federal state? Why? Wikipedia lists The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as an sovereign "state", along with Canada, the United States, Yemen, etc. Scotland and England are not listed. They then define the United Kingdom also as a "Constituent Country". See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Country -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 11:07 am Another VERY good link that covers all of these issues! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...terminology%29 Here is a snippet from this page: "The United Kingdom is a sovereign state. Its four component parts, whilst having equal rights to elect Members of Parliament on (nominally) the same terms (see West Lothian Question) are sometimes considered to be of different status. This view may be supported by the existence of devolved governments with different levels of power in Scotland and Wales. Due to historical precedence, England, Scotland, and Wales are considered to be countries and nations in their own right (although none of these is sovereign today) (see also Constituent Countries). Wales is also a principality of the United Kingdom (the Prince of Wales is usually the heir to the British throne). Northern Ireland is considered the "junior" partner of the United Kingdom, but ironically, until 1972, enjoyed a far greater degree of self-government than the other constituent parts." So, it seems to me that the UK is a "Sovereign State", just like Canada, the US, Australia. Scotand and Wales, are countries, but not Sovereign. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: saltymuffin Date: 01/20/2006, 11:09 am This still doesn't completely clear up how Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia are politically any different from Scotland or England. . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Mucky ([email protected]) Date: 01/20/2006, 11:17 am Tallulah That's cause to many americans Wales is in England...isn't it??? Lol Muck -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: xyz123 Date: 01/20/2006, 11:39 am 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... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: flanneruk Date: 01/20/2006, 11:41 am 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Tallulah Date: 01/20/2006, 11:41 am 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author: Robespierre Date: 01/20/2006, 11:46 am 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: Barbara- I wish! Salty, and lavenderdye, there's actually a bit of an issue about whether the UK rules Scotland with Scotland's consent, or whether Scotland rules Scotland with the UK's consent. As QC said, we became part of the same kingdom as England at the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when the King of Scots became King of England, rather than at the Treaty of Union in 1707, which merged the Parliaments. Please note the terminological differences. They have significant meaning. Coming from the political stand point I have (and I'm NOT a nationalist, I'd have you know) I beleive the state rules with the consent of the people. There are very strong historic links with this train of thought in scotland. In the period between 1979, when the Scots voted for a devolve parliament and Mrs T wouldn't then deliver- although, to be fair, that was the fault of Labour- we, the Scottish people, through the Constitutional convention, set down our "Claim of Right" "We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends: To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland'; To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure the implementation of that scheme." and that declaration is inconsistent with "devolution". Now, devolution is what we got. Whether it will be enough we await with interest. There are, incidentally, HUGE differences between the powers and status of the parliament and the assemblies- sitting or suspended. Saltymuffin (and QC- are you?), you're almost right in your parallels about Scotland but not quite. As I said above, Scotland can legislate on anything it likes except the "reserved matters", so it can make laws for all of Scotland and, indeed part of Scotland:- just not on some subjects. As our Parliament gets up a head of steam we fall less and less under English made law. We never fell under English law at all. That was one of the things guaranteed to us in the Act of Union (Law, Church, Education and- buggar, I've forgotten the 4th. Gardy? QC?). Faina? PalQ, you're quite right. The problem, however, is in mindset. the English think they ARE the UK, so they don't need a separate Parliament. And then they complain when we Scots vote on legislation that doesn't apply to us, only to them (or them and the Welsh) I agree with Gardyloo about the Kurds. They are a nation. The Kurds, from the 5 countries (ira)they live in, WANT to form a state. Whether or not they ever get one is yet to be determined. Patrick, I think you're right, inasmuch as any country in the EU can pass whatever laws it likes. Flanner, there's no question of Brussels only "allowing" us to legislate on what they say. if we did the opposite we might breach EU legislation itself, and that might be serious but there is no actual constraint on our doing it. |
Blast, that got posted by mistake. Sorry guys.
To finish, I'll assume that Tallulah was indulging her English humour about England paying for Scotland- there are those of us who might roast her on a spit for that!! lavenderdye, Mrs Windsor is indeed the Queen of England. Doesn't mean she ain't queen of other places too. Salty, the UK is NOT a nation state. It's a state but it's 3 and a bit nations. My pasport says I am a subject of HM, and a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. And London is the capital of England. Sorry about the length of this and the previous post. Dear fodors, please can we have a correction facility? |
Coming into this debate very late - but look, the constitutional experts - Laverendyre and flanneruk - have outlined the technicalities.
It is not necessary to compare and contrast and to try and find similarities or otherwise with the US or Canada, or wherever. Just take it on board that the way it works is imprecise and woolly. It comes from a thousand years of history, and maybe when it might have changed - when there were revolutions all over Europe and the US had recently been founded, the status quo survived because the times were good economically. The Brits are good at muddling through and making it up as they go along. We don't have a written constitution - we manage. It's the sign of a mature democracy. There's regional (tribal) loyalties that find an outlet in sport. The parliament in Scotland and the assembly in Wales are fairly recent innovations. Probably good. But England doesn't have one. Why? Well, it may not be logical but common sense prevails. And for all the talk of separate this and separate that - you just need to look at what happened during the two World Wars. Folk from all corners fought for their country, their way of life. We are one entity as a member of the EU. Adapt and change. Just as well |
This is fun.
|
So why does the concept of a United Kingdom still exist? From my travel experiences, it seems like the Scots in particular would love to be independent of England. Is Scotland being prevented from leaving the UK? And if so, why?
|
OF course the Scots aren't "being prevented" from leaving the UK. They don't vote to do so. I won't hazard any guesses as to the reason why...
|
It's Unst's oil.
|
It's because we love you so much, Patrick:)
|
London is the capital of England, Edinburgh (pronounced Endinbarah) is capital of Scotland, Cadiff is the capital of Wales and Belfast is the capital of Nr. Ireland. United Kingdoms of GB and Nr. Ireland doesnt have a capital but London (ie Whitehall speaks for all of them)....it is great fun....my boss, who is a scot, said in anger ''all immigrants should be thrown out of England'' a Indian asked him ''so when are you leaving'' Great fun this debate is!!!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09 PM. |