Except the union didn’t occur when James of the Two Numbers came to the English throne. The union occurred in 1707, in the reign of his great-granddaughter, Anne, who was born in England.
For the century in between, there were two separate countries who happened to have the same monarch, much as later on, the monarchs of Great Britain happened to be the Elector/King of Hanover.
I don’t think that specific argument supports your conclusion. Yes, some EU laws may regulate restaurants in the member states, but then again, some federal laws in the US regulate restaurants in the states. The same could be said of almost any other industry.
(Again, I’m not saying that the legislative power in the EU isn’t more centralized than in the US, only that if it is, your specific argument doesn’t seem to prove it.)
Which means there was a century-long transitional period during which they began to start thinking of themselves as a single country before it actually became the case. How many other countries had that?
Yes, you are. The EU is a cooperation between sovereign nations, each with its own legislation (although sometimes EU regulations supersede national laws), and nobody would claim to be a citizen of the EU, whereas Americans are citizens of the USA.
In that vein, the USA is a cooperation between sovereign states, each with its own legislature (although sometimes US regulations supersede state laws). It wasn’t that long ago that people were from their state first, and the country second. “States” in “United States” does not mean “province.”
Not, really. They are sovereign in regards to other states in the union, but not to other nations.
Well, yes, and yes. Same is true for Wales and Northern Ireland (who have assemblies with more limited powers than the Scottish Parliament). Scotland has always had a greater degree of autonomy from Westminster – separate legal, health and education for instance. Foreign policy still comes from Westminster on behalf of all the four countries.
The real issue came about with devolution, granting some independant legislative powers to Wales, N.Ireland and Scotland. At the time, it was felt that government was too slanted towards England, as the seat of Westminster and the vastly most populous nation in the union. Hence devolution. However, the result of this is that 3 countries now have their own assemblies/parliaments but also send MPs to Westminster, which votes on English as well as British legislation. So a Scottish MP can vote on a bill that affects only England. Not fair, to be sure and there are occasional murmurings about whether England should have its own Parliament or whether only English MPs should be allowed to vote on English matters (I favour the latter). Though I can’t see any signs of things changing in the short term.
Which always struck me as a bit daft, considering they’ve been part of England for as long as any other region of England has been.
I think it’s an ethnic thing. They’re Celts, dontchaknow.
Yeah, I know. Still rankles a bit in this day and age when England is really a nation of mutts. Next we’ll have vikings in York wanting their own nation.
This is probably something that makes a huge difference that is difficult for North Americans to understand. Because of short history, the frontier, mobility and mass media, the amount to which a population of a US state is homogenous and traces its roots to that same state - whereas a lot of areas of Europe (and the rest of the world) are very unmixed outside the bigger cities.
SOmeone in the USA is as likely to identify as Latino or Italian-American as they are to identify themselves as Texan or West Virginian.
The semi-country organization is probably as much as anything a way to relieve pressure from ethnic areas that feel themselves disenfranchised.
One thing I noticed when immigrating to Canada is how Canadians identify themselves with a province, in contrast to most Americans. My friend from Toronto identifies himself as an Ontarian and me as a Pennsylvanian. I would describe myself as from the US or from Philadelphia. Once I was at a meeting in Pittsburgh and a student who was with me asked if I had a special feeling being in my home state. “In Pittsburgh??”, I asked him, quite startled. So people’s attitudes to their home “state” vary a lot. Would someone from, say Munich, describe himself as a Muechner, a Bavarian, or a German? I don’t know.
No, it’s not. Florida can’t enter into a treaty with Japan, or declare war on Italy (or, for that matter, can it declare war on California). Florida does not have sovereign power. EU countries do.
They are “governed” by the EU in the sense that they have individually signed treaties agreeing to certain things, just like the US has signed plenty of treaties - that doesn’t mean the US is governed by France.
raises fist
Bring back the Danelaw!
Rubbish! You never had so good as when the Romans were in control. Bring back Julius Caesar!
Obligatory Monty Python sketch
“What Have the Romans Ever done for Us?”
Your comment about mutts suggests you think that the Cornish claim to a distinctive ethnicity is invalid. I think you’re mixing genetics and culture. Genetically, the Cornish and English are both descended from Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and probably some others. But genes have nothing to do with ethnicity or nationhood.
When England was first united, the political entity included two major linguistic groups: the British (=subset of Celts) and the English. Both included several closely related ethnicities (e.g. Angles and Saxons). The Old English speakers who were within the borders of England created a single ethnicity (with regional variations), aided by control of the state.
The British, on the other hand, were divided geographically. Within England, there are three groups: the northern British (from Elfed, Rheged, and southern Strathclyde: we can call them Cumbrians for simplicity), the Welsh, and the Cornish. The Cumbrians assimilated and became (a regional variety of) English by the mid-Middle Ages, probably well before the Norman invasion. The Welsh were mostly in Shropshire and Hereford, and because of their proximity to Wales they more or less retained their ethnic identity in that region until Victorian times. The Cornish are somewhere in between: they retained a distinct language and culture up until the seventeenth century.
All three groups have experienced cultural changes that bring them closer to English culture, but it’s not accurate to suggest that the Cornish have assimilated as completely as the Danish settlers from early medieval times.
The logical thing to do would be for England to have its own parliament, and transform the UK into a true federal state. In other words, be more like Canada or Australia.
Of course, when have the English (or the British) ever been logical? 
Same as the British nations, though. The opening of our Constitution provides for common defense, and so on, but the relationship is among otherwise sovereign states.
The counts of Barcelona were more or less independent from the 10th century until the 12th.