I’d also agree with everything in Martin Hyde’s post except for the bit about Scotland not being a nation - after all the OP was asking why Scotland is referred to as a ‘country’. The definition of ‘nation’ that Martin Hyde gave is not the only one that is ever used. ‘Nation’ is used for in many contexts to describe Scotland, eg the National Trust of Scotland, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Orchestra etc etc. These institutions long predate devolution and any movement for independence. Within the UK context, ‘nation’ and ‘country’ are interchangeable terms - England and Scotland are both generally regarded as being nations (or countries) within a larger nation state / sovereign state.
samjones none of this means that anyone here agrees with what you are saying; you seem to be one of these people who react to the last thing you heard and ignore all the context, for example the totally irrelevant and ludicrous comment about Bavarian independence.
English, British English at least, as generally spoken does not asign a precise meaning to country, nation, or state. In specific fields of study they may be closely defined but I suspect in most cases a qualifier will be used.
Depending on context Scotland can be a country, a nation, or a state but not - at the moment - an independent country, a nation state, or a sovereign state.
The 10th amendment isn’t so much about “certain things”. The constitution is really more of a list of Thou Shalt Nots then it is a job description. The States operate with incredible autonomy, but when they run afoul of the Federal Government…
48 of them, apparently… Virginia/West Virginia not being “one” of them.
We use the word “nation” all the time to describe indigenous (American Indian) tribal entities. Some of the people up here are simply uncomfortable with the malleable nature of the vocabulary of politics.
The current movement for Scottish Independence has little to do with sovereignity per se. It is more about granting ultimate authority to the legislative and judicial branches of Scottish government. Scottish Independence may eventually extend to separate budgets and executive programs - like the NHS, the military, DWP, etc., but “eventually” in terms of the shifting authority of the Crown can mean centuries. Really, if you’re interested in what will happen in your lifetime, I wouldn’t make a bigger deal of Scottish Independence then what you read in the papers.
OTOH - I wouldn’t be surprised to see Wales try to follow in Scotland’s footsteps.
Are you joking? Or are you genuinely as ignorant about this topic as this post demonstrates? The current movement for Scottish Independence is all about sovereignty (subject to international law in the form of things like the EU and ECHR). The SNP is not trying to “shift [the] authority of the crown”, it’s trying to build up a consensus in Scotland in favour of voting for independence. At the moment the majority of Scots would probably vote to stay in the UK - they might favour increased fiscal autonomy for Holryrood, but that option is always clearly distinguished from ‘independence’.
And I’m not going to go into the numerous misunderstandings apparent in the way you talk about things like the Scottish judiciary or NHS.
That’s not a political use of the word nation, but an ethnic one. Tribal entities are a “nation” in two senses:
A cohesive cultural unit, with (historically) its own language, culture, religion, and within recent memory, sovereignty. (Though not necessarily a sovereign.) In this sense, the Welsh are a nation, but the Scots are not, because they represent a political amalgamation of the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders and Inglis-Speaking (Scots English-speaking) Lowlanders. Even that’s a simplification, of course, and for a few centuries prior to 1603 especially, the Scots as a nation-state were in the process of forging a single nation out of their constituent nations. They didn’t finish before the union.
Federally recognized Indian tribes today often have limited autonomy and self-government, and in that sense they are politically nations. They are not, however, sovereign or independent nations.
Basically, once again I’m wrong because you are the keeper of the key to the dictionary and I do not understand the words that I use.
This must be the case and if only everybody posts enough and gets angry enough someone Scotland will lose its status as “nation” and therefore it’s right to self-determination.
The Scottish people have their own culture, history, government, language and reasonably well-defined borders. People identify themselves as ethnically Scottish even when they haven’t lived in Scotland for generations.
It is clear that Scotland is not an internationally recognized independent country. They haven’t even managed to truly get together a referendum for independence, much less get the votes they need and then actually get the English Parliament to approve it. Even then - they don’t appear to want their own military of diplomatic corps (yet) and so there’s no need for other countries to recognize them.
Your arguments are not on semantic in nature, but even then pointlessly so.
I’m more used to hearing people make this argument about “Palestinians” or “African Americans” - that they really don’t exist an ethnicity… for one reason or another. I guess I’ll add “Scottish people” to the list of people who are fighting for basic recognition.
To echo Scheidt-Hoch: Are you joking? The Scottish National Party has as its aim for Scotland to become an independent, sovereign, nation state within the EU. They did not place a massive emphasis on this in the recent Holyrood elections - they know that only about one in four of the electorate want this at the moment - but it is in their manifesto and in Alex Salmond’s statement of intent to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP certainly want greater financial and legislative powers for the devolved government but this is just a step on the road to full independence. The SNP are committed to holding a referendum on independence within the life of this parliament (ie within 5 years) but they want to leave it as late as possible in the hope they can massively increase the numbers who will vote yes - by taking popular measures themselves and by making the UK Coalition Government into a bogey man for every ill. If there was a Yes vote in a referendum the rest of the UK would not try to stop it and, presumably, Scotland would become an independent nation - in exactly the same way as Ireland, France, and the United States are - within a few years. If the vote is No independence will be off the table for years - although no doubt there would still be calls for more devolution.
The role of the crown has nothing to do with this. As has been gone over again and again, the Queen could be the Head of State of a soveriegn independent Scotland in just the same way as she is of Australia or Canada or Scotland could become a republic like Ireland - this is an entirely separate issue. Note that in a constitutional monarchy like the UK, the Queen “reigns” she does not “rule”.
As to Wales, they are already trying to “follow in Scotland’s footsteps”. The Welsh Assembly wants the same powers as the Scottish Parliament and Plaid Cymru campaign for independence - with even less popular support.
I don’t agree. I think most people in Scotland (in fact across the UK) would recognise the Scots as a nation at least as much as the Welsh - **Scheidt-Hoch **has pointed out how many entities use “Scottish National whatever” in their name. I do not think Highlanders and Lowlanders would ever see themselves as separate nations these days.
A bheil thu a smaoineachadh gum bu dualchas Gàidhlig an nì ceudna mar dualchas Beurla ann an Alba?
(“Do you think that Gaelic culture is the same as English culture in Scotland?” with, no doubt, an error or ten in my translation.) No one is saying that is not a nation in any sense.
Scotland is not (now) a sovereign nation.
Scotland is not (now) an independent nation.
Scotland is not now, nor has ever been, a nation of one language: Pictish, Old Welsh, Latin, Gaelic, Norn, and English have all been spoken by indigenous groups in the last two thousand years, and both Gaelic and English are still around.
Following that, Scotland is not now, nor has it ever been or claimed to be, a nation composed of one ethnic group.
Scotland is well-defined geographical region of the island of Britain.
Scotland is historically a sovereign and independent nation.
Scotland is a country within the UK with its own legal system.
For MarcusF: Well, reasonable minds can disagree. I’m not a Scot of any stripe (except by heritage, and that doesn’t count), so I don’t get a say. People identify at multiple levels, and there’s no reason someone cannot be British, Scottish, Gaelic, etc., and have those all be meaningful to some degree.
It may help to look at the Habsburg monarchy pre-WWI. This consisted of two “sovereign countries” with a common head of state, military, and foreign office: the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary. It was comprised of a variety of “nations” – distinct ethnicities occupying a given territory, with a common language and cultural traits. Contrast this with the United States and Australia: federations of formerly independent states which have joined together in a permanent union, but which retain some elements of sovereignty but ceded others to the federal government. Contrast it too to the United Kingdom, a unitary government like France where local gfovernments are created re-bounded, and dissolved at the behest of the Westminster-Whitehall central government. Like the Dual Monarchy, however, the United Kingdom is the union of four nations – ethnicities, formerly independent, into a single central government. Unlike the Dual Monarchy, all elements but the courts and law enforcement systems have been united into that central government, instead of only the two external-relations elements. Does this help in grasping the distinction between “state”, “country”, and “nation” which is being made?
@ Dr Drake: D’ye ken that Scotsmen e’en noo claim that Scottish is aye a true language, one convergent wi’ English, but wi’ still its own vocabulary – and that unlike dialectal forms it wa’ oncet a tonmgue nae mutually intelligible and the speech of a separate nation?
Better answers:
Is Texas a sovereign state? Yes, but very limited.
Is the United States a sovereign state? Yes, with some caveats.
Best answer: the United States has a system of shared sovereignty.
The important caveat is the US government cannot by itself modify its own constitution, while the states can collectively modify it without the consent of the US government. This is unusual; most other sovereign nations can modify their own basic law.
While our terms “country”, “nation”, “state” are rather nebulous, but part of the problem is the real world is complicated and rarely do things fit into simple categories.
Yes, I consider Scots a separate language from English, albeit a closely related on with partial mutual intelligibility. I’m aware of the counter-argument as well, but in my experience North Americans have very low comprehension when reading or listening to it.
I’m happy to agree to disagree I’ll even accept each of your statements as true. Actually, reading it again, I see now that I had not read your original post on this carefully enough. In responding to **samjones **you clearly distinguished between the political use of “nation” and its ethnic use and then go on to comment on its ethnic use in reference to Scotland. My comments apply to Scotland as a nation in the political sense. Oops!
As for me, being half Scots half English, I see myself as a typical mongrel Brit - completely ethnically confused.
If you want to test your comprehension of the “guid Scot’s tongue” try this site.
Here you go again arguing against things I never said. The powers that the States have is not derived from the 10th Amendment, nor has anyone made the claim that the constitution is a “job description.” Really where do you get the stuff that comes out of your mouth? Do you think I wouldn’t notice you arguing against things I never said? And you are frankly insulting because you claim no one but you understands anything being talked about but you obtusely don’t even seem to actually read what people are saying to you.
Again, read what I wrote. I said the Federal government cannot dissolve a state. The Federal government had nothing to do with the formation of West Virginia. Being an actual Virginian I know vastly more about this than you (based on my knowledge of local history and your statements demonstrating obvious ignorance on this matter.)
When Virginia seceded politicians from the Western counties met in Wheeling. They formed the “Restored Government of Virginia” and were recognized as the lawful government of Virginia by the U.S. Federal Government. The Restored Government of Virginia properly ceded the western counties to a new political entity. The Federal government could not do it because of the **4th Article **of the constitution (the 10th amendment being irrelevant to the issue of divvying up states.) After that point the political leaders of the Restored Government of Virginia continued to represent Virginia in the U.S. Senate and such, and the new government of West Virginia was admitted in 1863 and sent its own representatives to congress.
