Other way round, sorry. The Scottish King took the English Throne, but yeah, probably the crown too and whatever jewels were lying around 
Yeah but so’s Great Britain sometimes, I believe Barack Obama for one, has used it in that context.
It should be noted that Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party now have a majority government in the Scottish Parliament. Salmond claims full Scottish independence is “all but inevitable.” Secretary of State for Scotland (Liberal Democrat) Michael Moore said the UK will not block a referendum on independence or question the legitimacy of Scottish separation if the voters endorsed it.
Texans LOVED reading that one. No - Texas is a US State just like any other State and historically they’re damned happy to be one. Texans are 100% bound by US federal law and are obligated to submit to the authority of all US Federal agencies and it will always, always, always be that way. Statehood is a one way street. To not grasp that or to understand that but not agree with it is to not understand the history and Constitution of the United States of America.
Scotland is not so beholden to the UK Parliament or Supreme Court. They may be now - depending on how we frame the conversation - but they may not always be. The House of Windsor will rule Scotland in all forseeable circumstance but the other machinery of UK government may or may not exercise authority over Scotland even in our lifetime.
So the comparison to Puerto Rico was imperfect but I think somehow illuminating to an American.
I believe it. Within 3 decades maybe Wales too.
This is daft; the House of Windsor doesn’t rule Scotland even in the present circumstances. Monarchs long ago stopped ruling the UK in any meaningful sense, and would swiftly lose whatever remaining theoretical power they do have if they ever tried to exercise it against the will of the UK’s real rulers.
Your version of reality is simply incorrect. Scotland is ruled by Old What’s Her Name - just like England and Wales.
Scotland will never not be loyal to the crown. Scottish Independence will not result in a separate Crown - and by extension will never result in a separate military that is loyal to that separate Crown.
Isn’t the S.N.P. a republican party?
Some of my friends, I included, often find ourselves cursing the Scots. As do thousands upon thousands all over the World.
Those scurrilous devils invented golf.
And they played it with severed heads. Or was that polo?
I see someone’s pointed out the Great Britain/UK difference already, though I agree often people say Great Britain when they mean UK.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, the “Great” in “Great Britain” was to distinguish it from the Northern French peninsula of Brittany/Bretagne - I’ve come across mentions of the peninsula in old French books where it’s called Petite Bretagne, though don’t think I’ve ever actually heard anyone call it that. Now, with little chance of someone being confused as to which Britain you’re talking about, they’re both simply called Britain in their respective languages, without a qualifier needed.
I think that is Afghanistan.
Golf was invented by shepherds… whacking rocks into rabbit holes… while wagering their fellow shepherdsmen a few quids.
Winner buys the Ale.
Didn’t you look at Meurglys’s Venn diagram? Scotland, along with Wales and England, was inside the innermost “Great Britain” circle. Which is correct - the three countries are equal partners in the union, England’s large population notwithstanding.
Under what conditions would Puerto Rico appear in the innermost circle of a USA venn diagram, alongside Texas etc? None that I can see.
The SNP is a fairly broad church, with a republican element. I believe the official line is that the Queen would be Queen of Scots after independence. It’s worth noting that the SNP’s recent electoral landslide doesn’t necessarily translate into a popular mandate for separation. There were other factors at play in the election, notably the collapse of the Lib Dem vote.
Some of them are, some of them aren’t, or at least they don’t make a big deal of it. I guess it’s a bit of a vote loser - Scottish republicans are probably already sympathetic to the SNP, whereas other potential voters might be put off by an explicitly republican line. The SNP has enough on its plate trying to persuade the Scottish people to support independence. The polls vary but have hardly ever suggested majority support for it.
“Lord of Mann”? 
That has an epic ring to it.
The United States of America has no “inner circle”. You’re either a state or you’re not. It’s not a good analog.
Our States aren’t “partners” in The Union - they’re kept by it and 100% bound to it. Scottish loyalty to the Crown is different than Scottish acceptance to the “United Kingdom’s (read: English)” court system, parliament, and monetary system.
Scotland has always had a separate legal system from England.
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are not states. DC might be seen as more “in” than PR, though.
You’re saying something is a bad analogy after saying Scotland’s status is similar to that of Puerto Rico?
So is it Scotland’s constitutional status you don’t understand, or Puerto Rico’s? Is Puerto Rico a state or is it not?
Edit: before someone else starts an argument over whether Puerto Rico is actually a state, the fact that there is such an argument proves that samjones was wrong to imply so confidently that the USA doesn’t have any ambiguity regarding what’s in and what isn’t.