UK = a country made up of countries

[Candyman74]

@Pleonast

That is a very limited view of sovereignty. Sovereignty is not just about relations between sovereigns, it’s also about exercising power within a jurisdiction. I consider the latter more important, in terms of what affects the lives of people within a jurisdiction.

I agree that certain things are more important to peoples’ lives. But that doesn’t change the fact that these states do not have sovereign power.

No, not unilaterally, but it can.

But that’s the point. If it can’t do it unilaterally, then it’s not sovereign.

Do the departments within France have any legal mechanism for taking powers from France? I do not believe they do. Any sovereignty a department has is dependent on what France gives it. On the other hand, the sovereign powers that the US has is dependent on what the states give it. The US can neither take powers nor give them up, only the states can do that.

I’m not sure what French departments have to do with the discussion - nobody is claiming French departments are sovereign. *France *is sovereign.

And France can change its own constitution, while the US cannot.

Of course it can - with the permission of the electorate, just like France and everywhere else. The electorate in this case being the states (and thus devolving down to the people in those states).

I’m finding this discussion a bit bizarre now. Are you really maintaining that a US state is equivalent in powers to a country like France or Germany? I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re driving at or what your point is, but if your aim is to convince me that Nebraska is equal to France, it ain’t gonna happen.

[Pleonast]

@Candyman74

I’m finding this discussion a bit bizarre now. Are you really maintaining that a US state is equivalent in powers to a country like France or Germany? I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re driving at or what your point is, but if your aim is to convince me that Nebraska is equal to France, it ain’t gonna happen.

No, I’m maintaining that the states within the US have sovereign powers, including the power to determine which sovereign powers they have. Or, looking at it from the other direction, the US is not completely sovereign–it is dependent on the states for its own powers and has no say in what powers it does or does not have.

That is, the states within the US have more sovereignty than the departments within France, and the US itself has less sovereignty than France itself (but more than the EU has).

As democracies, their sovereign powers are ultimately granted by their people, but while France’s sovereignty rests directly on her people, the sovereignty of the US rests directly on the states, whose sovereignty then rests on their people. That extra layer is important, both in terms of how the sovereign powers are exercised and also how they are determined.

[bump]

@Pleonast

A state within the US is sovereign in one important aspect–it has the unilateral right (with some restrictions) to modify its constitution. The federal government of the US does not have that power; it is dependent on the states to make changes.

This is not unimportant. All the sovereign powers that the US enjoys can be reclaimed by the states for themselves, with the federal government unable to prevent it.

The primary difference is that the US States were more or less sovereign prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and delegated some of their powers and rights to the Federal government, and RETAINED others. In other words, they may have voluntarily given up sovereignty in some areas, but retained it in others.

In the UK, Parliament/the Crown DEVOLVED powers to the individual nations; in other words, they have the powers that the central government grants them, and nothing else.

This is a huge distinction- US states retain many powers that in other countries are the purview of the central goverment, and more importantly, the Constitution pretty much guarantees that the Feds can’t arbitrarily change those powers.

Put simply, Connecticut has had the ability to regulate say… farming for several hundred years, and joining the US didn’t change that. Scotland had not had the ability to do many of the things it can now do, until Whitehall decided that they would let them.

That’s what people mean by state sovereignty, not the ability to enter into treaties, etc… because they gave that up to the Federal government on entering the union.

[A.Gwilliam]

@bump

The primary difference is that the US States were more or less sovereign prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and delegated some of their powers and rights to the Federal government, and RETAINED others. In other words, they may have voluntarily given up sovereignty in some areas, but retained it in others.

I think this is a slightly awkward point to try and make, since the vast majority of US states didn’t exist at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

In the UK, Parliament/the Crown DEVOLVED powers to the individual nations; in other words, they have the powers that the central government grants them, and nothing else.

Perhaps more importantly still, the UK’s Parliament retains the legal power to abolish devolution.

This is a huge distinction- US states retain many powers that in other countries are the purview of the central goverment, and more importantly, the Constitution pretty much guarantees that the Feds can’t arbitrarily change those powers.

The relevant phrase that has been left out of the discussion so far is “dual sovereignty”.

Sovereignty in the US is not held exclusively at the “national” level, and it is not held exclusively at the state level; it is divided between the two.

Any given state within the US cannot effectively alter either its constitution or its “ordinary” law in a way that goes against the federal constitution; ergo, it is not fully sovereign. The federal constitution cannot be altered without the assent of at least three-quarters of the individual states; ergo, the “United States” is not fully sovereign [as against its constituent states].

In contrast, the constituent parts of the UK do not possess any legal sovereignty. Sovereignty is vested solely in the “Queen-in-Parliament”.

Those parts of the UK with devolved institutions have no legal capacity to unilaterally alter the existing limits on their powers imposed by Westminster. On the other hand, not only can Westminster alter those limits in either direction, it also has the legal power to legislate for any devolved matter. Thus, while Congress cannot unilaterally reorganise Alabama’s state police, Westminster can unilaterally do so for Scotland’s police.

But all the above relates to “legal” sovereignty. If Oregon attempted to secede from the US, clearly within the terms of its own law it would be able to amend its own constitution at will; this is exactly what happened with the Thirteen Colonies, after all. The practical question is whether that secession is successful: if it is, the US would sooner or later have to recognise Oregon as fully sovereign. The same would apply if Scotland seceded from the UK. But then, the same would also apply if Chicago attempted to establish itself as a fully sovereign entity.

[Candyman74]

@Pleonast

That is, the states within the US have more sovereignty than the departments within France, and the US itself has less sovereignty than France itself (but more than the EU has).

Departments in France are not sovereign. I don’t get why they’re being brought up.

As democracies, their sovereign powers are ultimately granted by their people, but while France’s sovereignty rests directly on her people, the sovereignty of the US rests directly on the states, whose sovereignty then rests on their people. That extra layer is important, both in terms of how the sovereign powers are exercised and also how they are determined.

That distinction - with all due respect - strikes me as pedantry and wordplay.

Anyway, I think we can probably leave it there. I don’t agree that US states are sovereign, you believe they are, and neither of us is going to gain anything out of futiley trying to persuade the other that they’re wrong.

[robert_columbia]

@Shakester

The USA started out as 13 separate English colonies, which banded together as the United States of America. Different states, united.

Australia started out as a bunch of separate English colonies which united at Federation in 1901. Before 1901 there was no “Australia” as a country, it was just the name of the land-mass.

Germany as a nation didn’t exist before Otto von Bismarck federated a bunch of separate countries (Prussia, Hanover, etc) in the 1860s.

Most nations were created by federating a bunch of smaller separate states. Before there was an England there were the separate kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia, Essex, and so on.

Canada as well was formed from the union of several colonies with independent legislatures. The US, Canada, and Australia are federations. Basically, in a federation, the component entities give up some rights (including, as we’ve discovered in the US, the right to leave the federation without the permission of the federal government) they maintain some rights. For example, The United States Congress could not up and pass a law dissolving Delaware and making it a part of Maryland without Delaware’s (and probably Maryland’s) consent. In a non-federation state, such as Ireland or many or all of the individual states of the US, local governments exist at the pleasure of the overall government. For example, the New York state legislature could most likely pass a law abolishing Nassau County and forcibly incorporate it into Queens (or possibly making it directly governed) without local consent.

@BDoors

All true, but I imagine the OP’s question is motivated by the sense that the constituent countries of the UK have retained their separate nationhoods to a greater degree than, say, the states of the US. Most Scottish people really do consider themselves to be of different nationality to English people. The four countries enter separate teams in some international sports tournaments such as the World Cup. They have different national anthems (although the status of those anthems is a bit vague).

I know that people in Texas, say, also consider themselves quite distinct from New Yorkers, but if you asked one of them their nationality, would they say “Texan”? Someone from Wales would quite likely say “Welsh”.

[edit] Spain is an interesting example though - I suspect many Catalonians, not to mention Basques, would not answer “Spanish”.

Well, there are distinct ethno-geographic identities in Europe that go back centures. For many people in the US, there isn’t that type of identity. I suppose that an American could claim Navajo nationality, but Texan identity is fluid and is more cultural than ethnic, as it is pretty easy for a US Citizen to become a Texan, and pretty easy for a Texan to move to NYC and renounce Texan culture.