# What is Scotland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 24, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087 "2011-05-24T23:22:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/101 "2011-05-26T16:31:28Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > The armed forces belong to Old Whats Her Name. Presumably Scottish Independence includes continuing loyalty and allegiance to the House of Windsor, so that doesn’t necessarily pose the problem that might think. No different than Canadian or Australian Independence which both happened recently (in Royal terms) within the last 100 years almost anyway you cut the cake. It would be a lot different than Canadian or Australian independence. The royal connection really is not the issue here. Scottish independence will require the U.K. military to be divided up between two sovereign states. That not anything like what would happen with Puerto Rico. > [@](#): > > It would still be the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whether they decide to keep the name “United Kingdom” wouldn’t change the fact that the united kingdom created by the Acts of Union will have ended. > [@](#): > > but I don’t see that it is totally insurmountable. Who said anything about it being insurmountable? > [@](#): > > It’s very unlikely that Puerto Rico would be truly responsible for their own defense in my lifetime. US/Puerto Rican ties run deep and I don’t see the US ever losing Puerto Rico like we lost Cuba. The United States will not have considered that it “lost” anything. Puerto Rico is not an essential element of what Americans consider the United States to be. And who exactly lost Cuba? It was never a territory of the United States. > [@](#): > > I agree that the parallels between Scotland and Puerto Rico are imperfect, to put it gently. Imperfect? “Nowhere in the same league” is more like it. ---
**Author:** ![samjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@samjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samjones)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/102 "2011-05-26T21:09:53Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Whether they decide to keep the name “United Kingdom” wouldn’t change the fact that the united kingdom created by the Acts of Union will have ended. Yabbut that would hardly be the first big deal thing that ever happened to the Royal family. They lost America. They lost Ireland. They lost India.. China… Southern Africa…They took and lost and retook various parts of Europe for millenia. The people of Scotland have to do what’s right for them. It just looks like another chapter in the grand scheme of things. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/103 "2011-05-26T21:47:50Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > Yabbut that would hardly be the first big deal thing that ever happened to the Royal family. > > They lost America. They lost Ireland. They lost India.. China… Southern Africa…They took and lost and retook various parts of Europe for millenia. Would you mind substantiating this rather extraordinary claim by naming at least one ancestor of the current monarch who lived two millennia ago, as well as the part of Europe they took and/or lost? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/104 "2011-05-26T22:44:47Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > I didn’t say that or anything like it. I said that whether the US recognizes Scotland as a state or has no bearing on whether Scotland exists. It doesn’t matter who collects their taxes or who makes their laws, Scotland remains a people, a language, a land and a nation with it’s own history and culture. I see no constructive reason to doubt the truth of that. See, this is the problem with talking about things you don’t know anything about. The OP essentially is asking how does one classify Scotland. Scotland is not a “people” it is not “a language”, it is a land, and it is not a nation. I think most people will concede that when talking about the definition of “State”, “people”, “nation”, there is valid debate. However the consensus, and by far the agreed upon usage in the English language is: **State** - A political entity. When talking about the realm of foreign relations we tend to talk about _sovereign_ states. The reason part of being a State is “external legitimacy” is because one of the key aspects of being sovereign is precisely that there is no government higher than the government of the State in question. The Federal Government in the United States is the highest government of the land, the President is its chief officer. The Federal Government of Mexico is the sovereign, country-level government of Mexico and its President is the highest officer. The United States does not recognize Chihuahua as a sovereign state, and for diplomatic agreements between countries the Mexican and American State Departments meet with each other, the governments of say, Texas, Arizona, Chihuahua, Sonora, or Coahuila are not at the table. Essentially a key part of being a sovereign State is that you have entered a “club” where the primary criteria for admission is that a large portion of the current members accept you as one of them. It’s like imagine there is a club that only allows “Postal and Parcel Delivery Persons” to belong to the club. By and large it would be up to the membership of that club to decide who belongs in that club. If a mail room clerk working in an office building wanted to join, it would be the prerogative of the club’s members to decide if he qualified or not. Since the world community does not recognize Scotland as a sovereign State, I don’t believe it is one. Like I alluded to above, that is just _one_ part of being a sovereign state. The other aspect is internal legitimacy. The people of Scotland would also have to recognize that Scotland was a sovereign State, by and large while some **want** that, I don’t think many of them **think that is the present situation**. For example some people in Vermont feel that Vermont should be a sovereign state, some of them even have started political movements to effect this. However, like 99% of Vermont does not want that, so Vermont has no internal legitimacy as a sovereign state (and even less external legitimacy.) External legitimacy becomes important if you look at world history. The United States received external legitimacy from France, the Netherlands and Spain during the American Revolutionary War, this was an important aspect of making us a legitimate sovereign state. Scotland isn’t a “people” because I’ve never heard of a “people” called Scotland. Scotland is a geographical territory, saying Scotland is a people is akin to saying New Jersey is a people. It is wrong in the sense of geography and honestly wrong in the sense of how people who speak English use language. Scots are a people. Not every Scot lives in Scotland and not everyone in Scotland is a Scot. Scotland also isn’t a language, that’s like saying “England” is a language or “Germany” is a language. There is a Scots Language and Scottish Gaelic, both are languages. Scotland also isn’t a nation, again, mostly because Scotland refers to a geographical territory. The definition of **nation** tends to mean “a people with shared culture, language and customs.” Nation’s are importantly different than states, because a State can comprise many nations or just one nation, and a nation can be spread throughout many States or just one state. In the 19th century national groups began desiring that the governments that ruled them be composed of and reflective of the desires of only that nation. Essentially nations desired the breakup of larger, multinational states in favor of smaller “nation states” (a state that is primarily composed of one and only one nation.) The nationalist movement was important in world history, but of course while in some cases some nations were successful in founding nation states, much of the world is still made up of large, multi-national states. Obviously this is one of those words people use differently. Political scientists tend to separate out the concept of nation and state. However common usage is not always thus, and in fact the “United Nations” is a collection of sovereign states and of course it is using the word nation interchangeably with the word state. There of course would be a Scottish nation, and its members would be the Scots who have a shared cultural history, shared customs, shared traditions, and who self-identify with one another as being part of the same group. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2011, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/105 "2011-05-26T23:05:58Z")
**Martin Hyde** mostly seems right here, but I’d quibble, > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Scotland also isn’t a nation, again, mostly because Scotland refers to a geographical territory. The definition of **nation** tends to mean “a people with shared culture, language and customs.” > … > There of course would be a Scottish nation, and its members would be the Scots who have a shared cultural history, shared customs, shared traditions, and who self-identify with one another as being part of the same group. I think it’s pretty reasonable and common to use the name “Scotland” to refer to _the Scottish nation_ as you have carefully defined. Or to that and the actual land, together. In fact that usage seems to encapsulate the idea of nationalism. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/106 "2011-05-27T00:26:16Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > Yabbut that would hardly be the first big deal thing that ever happened to the Royal family. > > They lost America. They lost Ireland. They lost India.. China… Southern Africa…They took and lost and retook various parts of Europe for millenia. The people of Scotland have to do what’s right for them. It just looks like another chapter in the grand scheme of things. The royal family? Are they the only people of the United Kingdom? ---
**Author:** ![samjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@samjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samjones)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/107 "2011-05-27T01:11:36Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **Martin Hyde** mostly seems right here, but I’d quibble, > > I think it’s pretty reasonable and common to use the name “Scotland” to refer to _the Scottish nation_ as you have carefully defined. Or to that and the actual land, together. > > In fact that usage seems to encapsulate the idea of nationalism. Admittedly I was a little loose with the English language when I said “Scotland is a people” - but it was purely intentional. I don’t think that the Martin Hyde guy really understands that there is a distinct Scottish culture, history and people that have always exercised some form of self-rule and have always have always maintained a measure of independence. He thinks they’re like the Vermont of Britain. THey’re not. Whatever some hippie burnout in Vermont may have written in crayon on those leaflets he was handing out at the A&P doesn’t matter. THere is zero chance of any US state ever becoming independent in our lifetimes. Puerto Rico is a different story. I’m not going to draw any Venn diagrams, but culturally, historically, and as a people Puerto Ricans are very much American and they view their neighbors in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut as being very much the same as their neighbors in San Juan. It would be a huge loss if Puerto Rico were to secede … at least that’s the Puerto Rican point of view. I don’t think that they could bear to be like their neighbors - where there are 2 Cuban peoples - the one that lives in Cuba and the other that lives in Florida and I don’t think that they’re interested in the misery of Haiti or the DR. They got in pretty good in Puerto Rico. I think that they know that. I don’t think that they have voted to become a State because that is an irreversible decision that brings with it changes that are incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![samjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@samjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samjones)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/108 "2011-05-27T01:12:43Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The royal family? Are they the only people of the United Kingdom? Nope - there is also the SCOTTISH people. And that’s really what this conversation is about. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/109 "2011-05-27T01:29:47Z")
Are you serious? You know this is GQ not some thread where you can just make up things I’ve said. I’ve clearly never said anything that contradicts the fact that Scotland has a long history, a distinct culture, or any of those things. You just seem to ignore the actual issue of legal state sovereignty, or more likely you just plain don’t understand it. Scotland cannot enter into treaties on its own, it cannot join international organizations or leave organizations on its own. It does not appoint foreign ministers. It does not have a military force over which it exercises political control. Scotland is a more distinct _cultural_ entity than one U.S. state is from the other. I don’t know that many would argue that, especially since it operated as a _truly separate state_ for around 600 years and has remained fiercely devoted to the concept of Scotland as a separate entity ever since. However legally, in most ways that matter, Scotland actually has _less_ legal authority and power within the UK than any of the 50 states do in the U.S. The fact that Scotland may some day be totally independent is sort of well, irrelevant. The fact that Texas won’t, is sort of well, irrelevant. We’re talking about _right now_. And right now Scotland is clearly not a sovereign state. Before you get confused again I will spell it out for you: Scotland is not a sovereign state, period, factual answer. The fact that it is not a sovereign state has nothing to do with whether or not it is a distinct culture. The fact that you keep responding to explanations as to why Scotland isn’t a sovereign state with posts about Scotland’s distinct culture shows you clearly do not understand what we’re talking about and should probably educate yourself before trying to continue to conversation. ---
**Author:** ![samjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@samjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samjones)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/110 "2011-05-27T01:51:05Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The fact that it is not a sovereign state has nothing to do with whether or not it is a distinct culture. The fact that you keep responding to explanations as to why Scotland isn’t a sovereign state with posts about Scotland’s distinct culture shows you clearly do not understand what we’re talking about and should probably educate yourself before trying to continue to conversation. What “we’re” talking about? Don’t you mean to say what “Martin Hyde” is talking about? You certainly don’t mean what OP was talking about. Scotland has it’s own legal system and parliament and has for ever/a long time. I don’t know that they necessarily have less autonomy than a US state at this time. Scottish Independence, as I’ve heard it framed, would not affect their sovereignity. It seems unlikely to me that many Scots would want a new sovereign. It would simply grant them self-rule, like Canada has, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/111 "2011-05-27T02:01:06Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > What “we’re” talking about? Don’t you mean to say what “Martin Hyde” is talking about? You certainly don’t mean what OP was talking about. > > Scotland has it’s own legal system and parliament and has for ever/a long time. I don’t know that they necessarily have less autonomy than a US state at this time. > > Scottish Independence, as I’ve heard it framed, would not affect their sovereignity. It seems unlikely to me that many Scots would want a new sovereign. It would simply grant them self-rule, like Canada has, for instance. When he says “sovereignty,” he is not referring to the sovereign. Despite the similarity of the words, the sovereign really has nothing to do with sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/112 "2011-05-27T02:02:02Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > What “we’re” talking about? Don’t you mean to say what “Martin Hyde” is talking about? You certainly don’t mean what OP was talking about. No, I’m actually talking about what the OP asked. You’re talking about other things that no one agrees with because you’re totally off base. For example your insistence that Queen Elizabeth is really running the UK or that sovereignty is defined by who your monarch is. Under your craziness Canada isn’t a sovereign state. Hell you know what, I just looked and Wikipedia’s article on this is basically perfect for you: [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign) Read it and maybe you’ll realize what everyone else is talking about. Note the very first sentence: **Sovereignty** **is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.** ---
**Author:** ![samjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@samjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samjones)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/113 "2011-05-27T02:11:41Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > **Sovereignty** **is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.** You don’t think that Canada grants that authority to Old Whats Her Name? Who do you think their Head of State is? Are we talking about the world according to Martin Hyde where he’s entitled to his own facts and I disagree with any of them then I’m just some “idiot” who doesn’t “know anything” and everyone is on Martin Hyde’s side? Is that where we’re going with this? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/114 "2011-05-27T02:11:57Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > When he says “sovereignty,” he is not referring to the sovereign. Despite the similarity of the words, the sovereign really has nothing to do with sovereignty. Exactly. A good example is the German Empire after unification (pre-1918), you had the King of Prussia who was also the Kaiser of the German Empire. There were several other Kings and several constituent grand duchies, principalities and etc. There were still crowned monarchs in the German Empire right up until the end of WWI other than the Kaiser. However, the moment Germany unified and all those constituent states became subordinated to the centralized government, even though the King of Bavaria was the “sovereign” of Bavaria, Bavaria was not a sovereign state. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/115 "2011-05-27T02:14:12Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > You don’t think that Canada grants that authority to Old Whats Her Name? Who do you think their Head of State is? > > Are we talking about the world according to Martin Hyde where he’s entitled to his own facts and I disagree with any of them then I’m just some “idiot” who doesn’t “know anything” and everyone is on Martin Hyde’s side? > > Is that where we’re going with this? As has been explained Elizabeth II (how about we stop calling one of the most famous people in the world “Old Whats Her Name” that is absolutely stupid and not entertaining in the least) is irrelevant to this issue. No one is saying she isn’t Head of State, what we’re saying is that is irrelevant to determining whether a state is a sovereign state or not. There have, as I’ve mentioned immediately above, been states with _sovereigns_ that were not themselves sovereign states. For example the King of Bavaria from the period 1871-1918. ---
**Author:** ![samjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@samjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samjones)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/116 "2011-05-27T02:16:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > However, the moment Germany unified and all those constituent states became subordinated to the centralized government, even though the King of Bavaria was the “sovereign” of Bavaria, Bavaria was not a sovereign state. Bavarian independence is right around the corner. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/117 "2011-05-27T02:17:12Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > Nope - there is also the SCOTTISH people. And that’s really what this conversation is about. You’re the one who brought up the royal family. Reading the subsequent posts, I think the problem is that you aren’t following the discussion here because you’re unfamiliar with the topic and its terminology. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/118 "2011-05-27T02:19:03Z")
> [@samjones](#): > > What “we’re” talking about? Don’t you mean to say what “Martin Hyde” is talking about? You certainly don’t mean what OP was talking about. > > Scotland has it’s own legal system and parliament and has for ever/a long time. I don’t know that they necessarily have less autonomy than a US state at this time. > > Scottish Independence, as I’ve heard it framed, would not affect their sovereignity. It seems unlikely to me that many Scots would want a new sovereign. It would simply grant them self-rule, like Canada has, for instance. Correctioon. Scotland has its on legal system and has had for a long time. Scotland gave up an independent Parliament in 1707 and only regained a not-completely-sovereign legislature in the late 1900s with devolution. And the Westminster Parliament retains the right to override anything that Edinburgh decides – not that they’re _likely_ to, but they have the legal authority to. There are. as discussed in other recent threads, some things that Washington cannot tell Sacramento or Austin to do, and other thiongs they can only coerce them to do by the power of the pursestrings. And for 16 states (the original 13 plus Maine, Texas, and Vermont) there was never a time when the national government was the sole legal authority in the territory now occupied by that state. In unitary U.K., that is not true. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/119 "2011-05-27T02:23:17Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Correctioon. Typo of the day. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087/120 "2011-05-27T02:29:42Z")
Just as a probably foolish attempt to try and clarify, “who” your sovereign is does not impact whether your state is sovereign. Who is the sovereign of the United States? The people of the United States. Who is the sovereign of Texas? The people of Texas. Is Texas a sovereign state? No. Is the United States a sovereign state (despite having the plural States in its name)? Yes. How do we know that the United States is a sovereign state and Texas isn’t? Easy. What is the “supreme authority” in El Paso, Texas? Ultimately, the government of the United States. Our constitution grants the individual 50 states certain things, and those 50 states are “inviolable” in that they may not be dissolved by the Federal government. However, given the supremacy clause, the fact that the President can and does assume command over the State military forces when he deems it necessary and other such things, it is obvious to all that the _supreme_ authority is the United States government. Who is the supreme authority in Scotland? The government of the United Kingdom. They have devolved certain powers to the Scottish parliament, but there is no real denying the supremacy of the Parliament in London and the government seated there. It is the government of the United Kingdom which exercises supreme military command of Scotland, it is the government of the United Kingdom which exercises supreme diplomatic powers for the entirety of the United Kingdom (which includes Scotland.) Note I didn’t mention Queen Elizabeth, because she _is not_ the supreme authority in the United Kingdom. Rather, the government of the United Kingdom is–and thus we can say that the region known as the \*\*United Kingdom \*\*is a sovereign state. However any constituent parts of it, are not. Queen Elizabeth is not a sovereign state because she’s not a state, she’s a person. If I was to ask who the sovereign of the UK was, you would say Queen Elizabeth and be correct. However it is the government of the United Kingdom that is the supreme authority in that territory (the territory which is recognized as the sovereign state known as “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-scotland/583087.md?page=7)