I believe that while England and Scotland are equal partners in the United Kingdom, Wales’s role is less than equal. Wales had already lost its sovereignty to England by the time the union came about.
There is no argument about the status of statehood for Puerto Rico. It is not a state.
While there is a significant movement for independence in Puerto Rico, the fact that they are still a protectorate of the United States and citizens of Puerto Rico are citizens of the United States of America.
If Puerto Rico ever becomes independent it will be done at the ballot box, not by armed insurrection. Independent Puerto Rico and the US will certainly be tightest of allies.
There is no rational reason to compare Puerto Rico to the District of Columbia.
So it is not actually part of the USA, or if it is, it is not in the “inner circle” you denied the existence of. Scotland is part of the UK, it is in the inner circle, as a signatory to the Treaty of Union in 1707 it has the same constitutional status as England (though in reality different political and economic power) .
“You’re either a state or you’re not.”
The District of Columbia is a part of the United States, and Puerto Rico is not. The distinction doesn’t come up much, but it matters in nationality law. (Someone born in DC was born “in the United States,” and is a US citizen automatically by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Someone born in Puerto Rico was not born in the United States, and has to look to an act of Congress for citizenship.) (The only non-state areas that are “in the United States” are the District and unpopulated Palmyra Atoll.)
Scotland also isn’t sovereign. It’s impossible to have more than one sovereign entity in a state with strong parliamentary supremacy. (US states have sovereignty, although it’s limited. Congress couldn’t just legislate away a constitutional organ of a state. The British Parliament could, on the other hand, simply abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow.)
It is not in the nonexistent inner circle. Correct. There is no non-existent inner-circle.
You are either a state or you are not. And if you are a state then you are 100% required to be taxed by the Federal Goverment, to follow the laws of the US Government, to use the money of the US Goverment, to contribute your citizen to the armed forces of the US Government, etc., etc.
And no amount of lobbying or balloting will ever make you any less likely to be part of the US Government. No other countries territorial claims on any of your land will ever be recognized by the US government (simple maritime boundary issues excepted). No occupying force will ever be allowed. Your state government is 100% responsible to work within the confines of the US Constitution and the rulings of the US Supreme Court.
There is no question that the Federal Government is the bigger dog in that fight - the states do only what the Federal Government does not prohibit them from doing.
The rules in American protectorates can be a little less cut and dried.
There are no credible efforts under way in any of the 50 states to gain any amount of independence from the United States of America and in my lifetime there will never be any.
DC happens to be the one single exception to that rule.
They aren’t a state, but they are definitely part of the non-existent inner circle.
That doesn’t mean that Puerto Rico’s relationship with the USA is analogous to Scotland’s relationship with the UK.
It’s true. My original post was only intended to clarify the matter to the American who asked.
But you didn’t clarify it at all - you gave the impression that Scotland is not fully a part of the UK. It might have been a valid comparison for somewhere like the Isle of Man, but for Scotland it isn’t.
This last bit isn’t quite true. While in English, there is now a new word for the French area, Brittany, thus making it unnecessary to modify Britain to distinguish the two, in French, the area is known as Bretagne and the island is Grande Bretagne, so you need the “Grande” to clarify what you mean or a French personne in France is going to thing you mean Brittany. Although, most of the time, they just refer to the whole island as Angleterre, that is England.
I don’t believe that samjones is interested in making any concessions or clarifications which would serve to further belie his rather blatant misconception of basic political structures. He is here to advance an idiosyncratic view of the UK which can be supported only by willful ignorance of facts and abstention from basic reasoning.
I kind of rushed through the last bit, I admit and what I ended up writing kind of drifted from what I meant. I was trying to address what the “Great” part of “Great Britain” meant, and why it’s often dropped… what I meant to say was that French people say Bretagne, they mean French Brittany, and when English speakers say Britain, they mean Britain in the UK.
Quoth Candyman74:
Some might say that it’s made up of 3 1/4 countries. Or, to be more precise, 3 3/16.
And I’m not sure why folks are bringing up Scotland’s loyalty to the Queen. That doesn’t prove anything, unless you also consider Canada and Australia to be part of the same nation.
It’s two Kingdoms, one Principality and one Province.
In the case of Hawaii, I think you meant to say conquered by treachery due to naked greed & racism*.*
Two-thirds of a province. 
Yes 
Flattery will get you nowhere.