Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

Cookie_Monster · 25-04-2014 11:13am

walrusgumble wrote: »

What "obvious economic and trade benefits"?

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Economy

Although the Commonwealth does not have a common market, research by the Royal Commonwealth Society has shown that trade with another Commonwealth member is up to 50% more than with a non-member on average.[86] There is a significant movement in the United Kingdom to increase trade in the Commonwealth,[87] with some suggesting a Commonwealth Union as an alternative to its membership in the European Union.[88]

alastair · 25-04-2014 11:17am

walrusgumble wrote: »

Same Head of State in the long run. Head of State live in London. Are English born themselves. When was a Welsh man the Welsh Monarch? Of course, who is to say there would not be another case of Monarchy Crisis which De Valera took great advantage of in the 1930's

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck

Again: they have different monarchical traditions. I'm not disputing they share the same monarch at the moment, same as Canadians and Australians do (are they all the same nationality then?)

And again, you seem to have missed this:

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

antoobrien · 25-04-2014 11:29am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Economy

It's probably worth noting that we export more to the UK than the top 3 commonwealth "trading partner" countries combined.

Cookie_Monster · 25-04-2014 11:43am

antoobrien wrote: »

It's probably worth noting that we export more to the UK than the top 3 commonwealth "trading partner" countries combined.

We're in a reasonably unique and enviable position world wide with the UK, US and EU in terms of trading status, but you can never rest on your laurels. Indian in particular is a MASSIVE market and to be able to get in there through Commonwealth channels alone is worth joining, never mind anything else. Speciality food, dairy, meat, pharma are all major strengths we could put to use.

antoobrien · 25-04-2014 12:07pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Indian in particular is a MASSIVE market and to be able to get in there through Commonwealth channels alone is worth joining, never mind anything else. Speciality food, dairy, meat, pharma are all major strengths we could put to use.

Join the commonwealth to access a market half a world away with nations already part of the commnwealth - Austraila, New Zealand, Singapore & South Africa - that have much easier access? That makes sense!

Much better to go after South America & Africa, there are plenty of nations out there that we already have relationships with due to charity & religious missions rather than trying to barge our way into an already packed club.

alastair · 25-04-2014 12:12pm

antoobrien wrote: »

Join the commonwealth to access a market half a world away with nations already part of the commnwealth - Austraila, New Zealand, Singapore & South Africa - that have much easier access? That makes sense!

Much better to go after South America & Africa, there are plenty of nations out there that we already have relationships with due to charity & religious missions rather than trying to barge our way into an already packed club.

Quite a large African market within the Commonwealth though, and don't we already compete successfully with NZ on the agribusiness front - half a world away?

walrusgumble · 25-04-2014 1:38pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Economy

So, you rely on wikipedia. Good man. For a start, the Commonwealth report, purpodetly taken by Wikipedia as a source can no longer be found. Without that, the statements that you highlighted are bland with nothing to support it really.

Good man, a bunch of despot third world countries being reliant on the Commonwealth as assess to civilised countries like Australia UK and Canada

Sure, those African nations, that are part of the Commonwealth are doing soooooooooooo great. Kind would prefer to only trade with nations that will pay their bills.

"here is a significant movement in the United Kingdom to increase trade in the Commonwealth"

There is a significant movement for Ireland to reduce its debts....

Christ on a stick, the UK have being trying to increase trade in the Commonwealth for a very very very very very long time . Even, lol Top Gear did an episode in India trying to improve Trade links, with hilarious consequences. For a group of closely linked nations, you would think that there wouldn't be a need for such an extra effort to improve trade.

Aspirations of something akin to the EU, according to wikipedia source, comes from.... shock horror, surprise surprise.... UKIP! - For the guys who just can't accept that the Empire had gone

None of that deals with (a) Ireland's ability or inability to negotiate with the Commonwealth Nations on it's own; (b) Ireland's ability to provide wanted products/goods/services as competitive prices

No doubt you have read the Telegraph, Tory friendly paper about the "Commonwealth has never been stronger". They would publish that, after all, they have an anti EU agenda. It is like the Irish Times saying now is the time to buy a house. Telegraph look in amazement about third world countries being in a que to join.... well I never
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9775008/The-Commonwealth-has-never-been-stronger.html

"heir trade was likely to be a third to a half more than when one or both trade partners was non-Commonwealth"

1. Likely to be a third - is not the same as "their trade is a third to a half....."
2. What countries were they talking about? Australia - Canada; UK - Australia; India - some kip in Africa?

Britain's main trading partners (export)
Germany (10.9 percent), US (9.9 percent), Netherlands (7.9 percent), France (7.4 percent), Switzerland (7.1 percent), Ireland (6 percent), Belgium (5.3 percent)
Primary imports partners: Germany (12.5 percent), China (8.2 percent), Netherlands (7.1 percent), US (7 percent), France (5.7 percent), Belgium (4.8 percent), Norway (4.7 percent)

http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/united-kingdom/export-import.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21127037
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578085-britains-fastest-growing-trade-links-are-really-re-emergence-old-ties-island-traders

Not a single Commonwealth Nation is sight of the top 5

As for Canada

https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/sbms/sbb/cis/internationalTrade.html?code=11-91&lang=eng

http://www.dpcdsb.org/NR/rdonlyres/0535EFD9-639D-4D95-B7AA-461E34742340/101643/Canadasmajor_trading_partners_20101.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Canada
Bar UK, not one other Commonwealth nation in the top 10

EU, UK, and the Japanese are busy with Canada (

Apparently China, and not UK, is India's top trading partner
http://qz.com/183134/china-is-now-indias-top-trading-partner-and-one-of-its-least-liked/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/feb/22/cameron-india-trade-exports-imports-partners

Is Singapore a member of the Commonwealth?)

As for the Aussies , they are more active with civilised Commonwealth Nations
https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trade-at-a-glance-2012.html

So...................... no, not really, it is not obvious that there would be trade benefits!

Also, an intelligent person would have provided a source that does not contradict the tiny paragraph that you highlighted. The article went on to state

"A poll in the fifty three member nations showed that seven of the states on the occasion of 60th anniversary of the founding of the Commonwealth in 2009 commissioned by the Royal Commonwealth Society found that in the seven countries a majority were largely ignorant of the Commonwealth's functions and indifferent towards its future. In Canada one third of respondents said they would not care if Canada left the Commonwealth, half could not describe what it does, and Canadians were four times more likely to support closer ties to the United States. Support was also weak in other of the seven wealthier Commonwealth realms but much stronger in the many poorer Commonwealth nations where human rights abuse and poverty was an on-going concern, these citizens look to the Commonwealth for support and protection. Nearly one fifth of Australian respondents said they would be "delighted" or "pleased" if their country left the Commonwealth while at the same time six other nations were applying for membership due to the Commonwealth's guarantee of human rights, closer trade and cultural ties.[108"

Don't know about you, but if we go trading with countries, I would prefer that we trade with countries that will and can pay its bills! Granted, many morons might believe the same about the EU, but that would be gross stupidity as the EU presence is actually "obvious" unlike the Commonwealth.

Try harder!

alastair · 25-04-2014 3:38pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Try harder!

Speaking of which. You've still not addressed my question:

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

Richard · 25-04-2014 5:56pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

iWas Scotland and Wales fighting for complete Independence for the past 150 years?

Was Ireland?

walrusgumble · 25-04-2014 6:31pm

alastair wrote: »

Speaking of which. You've still not addressed my question:

Scousers? Not repeatable here. Too many sensitive souls

I have been the one that has demanded the posters to explain the "obvious" cultural identities of Scots/Welsh. Why should I help those people who make those bland comments?

No one is suggesting that a Cardiff guys acts or thinks different to a Glasgow guy; whether attitudes to life, politics, view of the Union etc......

Their Nationality and citizenship is British. Well, they will preach that they are Nationals of Scotland and Wales respectively, but, meh, they are part of a Union that is English centred, with English Born titular heads - Where a Prince of Wales likes to wear a Scottish Kilt. But that is their desire. No passport is going to say that they are Welsh / Scot (bar state place of birth) T That is the point being made not only by me but by the original poster who kicked off the sub issue.

It concludes by pointing out how utterly laughable it is to compare Scots/Welsh and the Irish, in relation to links with the Union.

Alas, the points went over the heads , and we have people waffling about "obvious" identities - yet not trying to give Specific and general examples

walrusgumble · 25-04-2014 6:35pm

Richard wrote: »

Was Ireland?

Failed IRB Rebellions in 1848, 1860ish, 1916, and 1919-1921

Fighting for at, minimum, Home Rule 1878 (Butt) to 1914 (Not complete separation but the nearest Constitutional effort - still sought a continued link with the Union)

Ah, you trying to be smart of course, suggesting that meant 150 years continuous ? Or getting nose out of joint that it's not 150 years exactly? Or maybe to will try to suggest that not every man woman and child picked up a gun , ignoring that they voted a certain way. Nice Try dear boy.

Anyway, my last statements are merely in response to others and / or replies to questions/points directed at me. Posters have referred to facts being "obvious" yet failed, entirely to support those statements

I am sure it would be fair to suggest we all deal with more modern issues regarding the pro's and con's of joining the Commonwealth?

Yours Lovingly

alastair · 25-04-2014 6:42pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Scousers? Not repeatable here. Too many sensitive souls

I have been the one that has demanded the posters to explain the "obvious" cultural identities of Scots/Welsh. Why should I help those people who make those bland comments?

No one is suggesting that a Cardiff guys acts or thinks different to a Glasgow guy; whether attitudes to life, politics, view of the Union etc......

Their Nationality and citizenship is British. No passport is going to say that they are Welsh / Scot (bar state place of birth) That is the point being made not only by me but by the original poster who kicked off the sub issue.

It concludes by pointing out how utterly laughable it is to compare Scots/Welsh and the Irish, in relation to links with the Union.

Alas, the points went over the heads , and we have people waffling about "obvious" identities - yet not trying to give Specific and general examples

So - afraid to answer a simple question. Not particularly convincing attempt at dissembling either.

Different languages
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

walrusgumble · 25-04-2014 7:01pm

alastair wrote: »

So - afraid to answer a simple question. Not particularly convincing attempt at dissembling either.

Different languages
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

I dealt with all of that actually. Read back!

Rugby is hardly distinctive and unheard of in England or Scotland (or France or New Zealand) and also could be considered a national sport of their areas, as much as it is for Welsh, admit tingly, the latter play more of it. Soccer, ha, only because of their historical background and role in establishing Association Football, does FIFA tolerate 3/4 British teams to act as International Teams.

No matter what way you put it, the monarch of Wales and Scotland, will, unless some abdication crisis ala Dev's exploitation of same, is the same family, from the same part of England .Many of the laws that are passed in England have the same territorial effect in Wales and Scotland , as were assented by the Head of the UK

So, the Church of Scotland or Church of Wales, or other various Protestant Churches or Catholic Church in Scotland / Wales much different , in beliefs as in England? One more Catholic than the other? Does religion truly play a bigger role in their respective societies as oppose to the other?

Music, you know damn well that the British Tourist board tries to package it as being British. After all, these 3 regions are ONE NATION. Anyway, just as well as you don't refer to modern music or you would be going way off the wall, lol.

Political structures, as I already said, the Scottish and Wales Assemblies, like the North, are glorified county councils! Westminster still dictates and control the more important issues. Each area sends members to Westminster House of Commons. Labour and Conservatives have for a very long time dominated both areas of Wales and Scotland. Their respective leaders are based in England. (though they may personally be Scots or Welsh) Oath of Allegiances are still sworn to the Crown, they are all, ultimately answerable to the Crown(s) - completely different to the South of Ireland (Read back, I dealt with this point already - no response thereafter from you or others)

Cultural Touchstones, I see where you are coming from, but, why should I spell it out for you, care to provide some distinct examples of Scottish , Welsh and English "cultural touchstones"?

Funny now, since you quoted the "try harder" comment, you don't give a bash in providing evidence that joining the Commonwealth is a "no brainer" or definite economic benefit to Ireland , as your friend has tried to do. After all, the comment "try harder" is in response to the suggestion that joining would be a "no brainer" .....

alastair · 26-04-2014 10:13am

walrusgumble wrote: »

I dealt with all of that actually. Read back!

Rugby is hardly distinctive and unheard of in England or Scotland (or France or New Zealand) and also could be considered a national sport of their areas, as much as it is for Welsh, admit tingly, the latter play more of it. Soccer, ha, only because of their historical background and role in establishing Association Football, does FIFA tolerate 3/4 British teams to act as International Teams.

No matter what way you put it, the monarch of Wales and Scotland, will, unless some abdication crisis ala Dev's exploitation of same, is the same family, from the same part of England .Many of the laws that are passed in England have the same territorial effect in Wales and Scotland , as were assented by the Head of the UK

So, the Church of Scotland or Church of Wales, or other various Protestant Churches or Catholic Church in Scotland / Wales much different , in beliefs as in England? One more Catholic than the other? Does religion truly play a bigger role in their respective societies as oppose to the other?

Music, you know damn well that the British Tourist board tries to package it as being British. After all, these 3 regions are ONE NATION. Anyway, just as well as you don't refer to modern music or you would be going way off the wall, lol.

Political structures, as I already said, the Scottish and Wales Assemblies, like the North, are glorified county councils! Westminster still dictates and control the more important issues. Each area sends members to Westminster House of Commons. Labour and Conservatives have for a very long time dominated both areas of Wales and Scotland. Their respective leaders are based in England. (though they may personally be Scots or Welsh) Oath of Allegiances are still sworn to the Crown, they are all, ultimately answerable to the Crown(s) - completely different to the South of Ireland (Read back, I dealt with this point already - no response thereafter from you or others)

Cultural Touchstones, I see where you are coming from, but, why should I spell it out for you, care to provide some distinct examples of Scottish , Welsh and English "cultural touchstones"?

Funny now, since you quoted the "try harder" comment, you don't give a bash in providing evidence that joining the Commonwealth is a "no brainer" or definite economic benefit to Ireland , as your friend has tried to do. After all, the comment "try harder" is in response to the suggestion that joining would be a "no brainer" .....

You didn't 'deal' with those points at all - you attempted some half-baked dissembling. The points stand for anyone who isn't blind to the realities.

And still afraid to acknowledge the national identification issue?

Sad really.

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:09pm

alastair wrote: »

Again: they have different monarchical traditions. I'm not disputing they share the same monarch at the moment, same as Canadians and Australians do (are they all the same nationality then?)

And again, you seem to have missed this:

Australia and Canadia are indisputably Nations, in their own right. Little if any of the Laws of Westminister or House Of Coomons/Supreme Court have any binding effect on the said countries. Their people are citizens of their respective countries.They hold passports of their countries. Their association with Britian concerns external affairs not. Domestic

The same can not be said about Scotland or Wales. Unlike Australia and Co, Scotland and Wales are part of a nation called , United Kingdom of Great Brtain (ie England, Scotland and Wales) and Northern Ireland. A Scot is NOT a citizen of Scotland, they are SUBJECTS of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. Both Scotland n Wales don't hold passports of their own "country", neither are they completely free ,(outside EU law) to legislate without some direction from London

This is getting utterly ridiculous. Now you are comparing Australia n Canada to Scotland and Wales. STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:12pm

alastair wrote: »

Quite a large African market within the Commonwealth though, and don't we already compete successfully with NZ on the agribusiness front - half a world away?

Why haven't Britain tapped into it so? I have shown links already, no African nation comes within Britians top 5 trading partners. None of the commonwealth's do bar Canada.

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:19pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

A Scot is NOT a citizen of Scotland, they are SUBJECTS of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Ehh, what would said Scousers national identity be?
And what would the respective national identities of those in Cardiff or Glasgow be?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:29pm

alastair wrote: »

You didn't 'deal' with those points at all - you attempted some half-baked dissembling. The points stand for anyone who isn't blind to the realities.

And still afraid to acknowledge the national identification issue?

Sad really.

Sadder when posters can't deal with reading and comprehension well.

All of those issues have been addressed in full in several posts. Read back and stop trolling.

TheIR point was not a lack of national identity the point was whether there was "obvious" national identity. It is laughable that you waffle on,considering at no stage have you attempted to state clear, precise, and actual "obvious' national identities of the 3 areas that make up Great Britian. The differences with Scotland,Wales n England, though not huge, makes up a Nation, that nation is called Great Britian. All are subjects to that nation, not citizens of subjects to Scotland,Wales,England.

The second point and issue, is the nonsensical notion of (a) comparing Scotland and Wales with Ireland, an independent and sovereign nation and one that has had an utterly different relationship with England. And. (b) now, comparing Scotland and Wales with other commonwealth countries like Australia, who,like Ireland, are de facto independent countries

The further issue was to address association with the commonwealth as a "no brainer" economically. Rely on a faulty source, and not even reading it in full and utterly failing to prove proofs of why,economically, it is a "no brainer" - while you did not state that, you preferred to quote statements made by me on that issue, thus, you were invited, but refused, to deal with that.

Bland comments like "obvious" and "no brainer" have been bandied about ,yet absolute no effort was made by you or others to substantiate them. And you have the nerve to waffle on about half baked ideas?

It is patently clear that there is little desire to associate with the Commonwealth, from this country's point of view. Tha same arguments of economic benefits have been made with little support (ie ability to achieve that as we are compared to joining) this topic has been dealt with several times over the last few years on this site,by the usal minority types. It is blatant trolling, when they fail and refuse to actually address their comments.it aint for others to hold their hands

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:38pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Mother of god, of course it refers to the area of birth. All passports, birth certs refer to the place of birth.

Have a big look at the front of the passport! Any Scottish Embassies around the world? No, but there are British Embassies.

A Scot is not a citizen! They are subjects, subjects of the crown, the crown of UK of GB and NI. Britian Aint a Republic.not citizens or subjects to " Scotland" but to "UK of GB and ni"

Scotland have no legislation that allows them recognise who can be a citizen of their area. That is made in London.

Afraid? Why don't you accept it, you can't read, understand or actually support what you are saying. Move on and stop trolling. Even the Olympics, a Scot does not have the flow of Scotland or St Andrew's flag, they have God Save the Queen n Union Jack (which does include St Andrew's) so to the outsider, its hardly "obvious" proof of separate identity

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:40pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

TheIR point was not a lack of national identity the point was whether there was "obvious" national identity. It is laughable that you waffle on,considering at no stage have you attempted to state clear, precise, and actual "obvious' national identities of the 3 areas that make up Great Britian.

Since you missed it - here it is again:
Different religions
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

walrusgumble wrote: »

The differences with Scotland,Wales n England, though not huge, makes up a Nation, that nation is called Great Britian. All are subjects to that nation, not citizens of subjects to Scotland,Wales,England.

The UK is comprised of a number of nationalities - quite obvious to all, and most notably to all concerned - just apply the question you're so afraid to answer, and more than that - it comprises a number of countries, as articulated by the prime minister of the UK's office:

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Are they independent states? No they're not, but they are distinct, differentiated, and identifiable nations.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 1:49pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen (as it says on their passport) of the UK. And their nationality is Scottish.

Again - you're afraid to answer the following:

Scouser, Cardiff taffy, Glasgow jock, are, to the world, British nationals, subjects of UK GB and NI, as repeatedly stated, not comparable to Ireland or other commonwealth countries

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:53pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

A Scot is not a citizen! They are subjects, subjects of the crown, the crown of UK of GB and NI.

A Scot is a citizen of the UK, you don't have to have a republic to be a citizen.
Note the word following British below?

alastair · 27-04-2014 1:54pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Scoucer, Cardiff taffy, Glasgow jock, are, to the world, British nationals, subjects of UK GB and NI, as repeatedly stated, not comparable to Ireland or other commonwealth countries

Still afraid to answer the question, eh?

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:05pm

alastair wrote: »

Since you missed it - here it is again:
Different religions
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

Lol, as repeatedly stated

NONE of them are remotely that distinctive from the other, and most certainly NOT "obvious" to the rest of the world. Sure dome of those things could apply equally to many different parts of the US ,yet, the States are not different nations, but one American.

As heartedly stated the exAmples above are nonsense. Political allegiance, in the majority , is allegiance to the UK and not to Wales etc. Oaths of allegiance are not made to Scotland etc but to UK. Political parties based in London have for most part of their histories ruled Scotland n Wales, the assemblies are TALKING SHOPS! Westminster is still the boss

Sports, don't make me laugh, ruby and soccer are just as much a national and major sport in England as it is in Wales or Scotland.

You then waffle
The UK is comprised of a number of nationalities - quite obvious to all, and most notably to all concerned - just apply the question you're so afraid to answer, and more than that - it comprises a number of countries, as articulated by the prime minister of the UK's office:
Obvious to all? Sure about that? Who are all? Why would a Yank know you are a citizen/ subject of Scotland when your passport says your "British"

You then say

Are they independent states? No they're not, but they are distinct, differentiated, and identifiable nations.[/QUOTE]

If you can't rule your own affairs, outside EU law, without being dictated by another region, if you can't dictate who can become a national of your nation, or have a true say in who your monarch will be, share essentially, the same religious beliefs, same political parties,just different accents, share the same sports (Christ Cardiff and Swansea play in the English Premier League) you can't truely call yourselves distinct, hence they are nothing countries.

Richard · 27-04-2014 2:08pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Failed IRB Rebellions in 1848, 1860ish, 1916, and 1919-1921

Fighting for at, minimum, Home Rule

But not 'Ireland' as a whole. Not for 150 years. "Some people in Ireland" =/= "Ireland"

Ah, you trying to be smart of course

Nope.

Or getting nose out of joint that it's not 150 years exactly? Or maybe to will try to suggest that not every man woman and child picked up a gun , ignoring that they voted a certain way. Nice Try dear boy.

I'm suggesting, correctly, that Ireland as a whole (or even in large numbers) was struggling for independence. Home rule was popular, but not independence for much of that time, and there was a significant proportion of the population that didn't even want Home Rule.

I am sure it would be fair to suggest we all deal with more modern issues regarding the pro's and con's of joining the Commonwealth?

Absolutely, which is why bringing up 150 years of this, that or the other is a bit pointless.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:10pm

alastair wrote: »

Since you missed it - here it is again:
Different religions
Different political structures, and parties
Different religions
Different musical traditions
Different monarchic traditions
Different (national) sporting allegiances
Different cultural touchstones

Lol, as repeatedly stated

NONE of them are remotely that distinctive from the other, and most certainly NOT "obvious" to the rest of the world. Sure some of those things could apply equally to many different parts of the US ,yet, the States are not different nations, but one ,American.

What is different " cultural touchstones""!?

As repeatedly stated the exAmples above are nonsense. Political allegiance, in the majority , is allegiance to the UK and not to Wales etc. Oaths of allegiance are not made to Scotland etc but to UK. Political parties based in London have for most part of their histories ruled Scotland n Wales, the assemblies are TALKING SHOPS! Westminster is still the boss

Sports, don't make me laugh, ruby and soccer are just as much a national and major sport in England as it is in Wales or Scotland.
FIFA only tolerate UK having 4 teams because of their history to football.
Olympic you are Team GN and.NI

You then waffle
The UK is comprised of a number of nationalities - quite obvious to all, and most notably to all concerned - just apply the question you're so afraid to answer, and more than that - it comprises a number of countries, as articulated by the prime minister of the UK's office:

Obvious to all? Sure about that? Who are all? Why would a Yank know you are a citizen/ subject of Scotland when your passport says your "British" a minister in Europe does nit represent Scotland, but the UK. The English will be more concerned about them than how laws effect the Scots.

You then say

Are they independent states? No they're not, but they are distinct, differentiated, and identifiable nations.[/QUOTE]

If you can't rule your own affairs, outside EU law, without being dictated by another region, if you can't dictate who can become a national of your nation, or have a true say in who your monarch will be, share essentially, the same religious beliefs, same political parties,just different accents, share the same sports (Christ Cardiff and Swansea play in the English Premier League) you can't truely call yourselves distinct, hence they are nothing countries.

alastair · 27-04-2014 2:10pm

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:29pm

alastair wrote: »

A Scot is a citizen of the UK, you don't have to have a republic to be a citizen.
Note the word following British below?

A passport compliance with EU law that refers to "citizenship"

Now.look at British Law, one is a subject. Granted, in practice, subject and citizen mean the same, to the outside world, but, citizens can elect their heads of state, a subject CANT!

The other point made was it is "obvious" that Scots are "disctinct" .

Well you have just proven that is nonsense. The passport does not say citizen of Scotland, but citizen of Britian. So, it is not obvious to everyone that a Scot is a distinct national, unless you were aware that Britian is made up of Scotland England and Wales. Can you truely say the rest of the world sees the distinction?

"obvious" to you and I, not obvious to the rest of the world. That was the point being made, in response to people stating it was "obvious" and "distinct" . Posters try to compare Scotland and Wales with Ireland and Australia and co and wonder why that can't be.

alastair · 27-04-2014 2:38pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

A passport compliance with EU law that refers to "citizenship"

Now.look at British Law, one is a subject.

Clearly you haven't. Scots are citizens.

The term British subject currently refers, in British nationality law, to a limited class of people defined by Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981. Under that Act, two groups of people became "British subjects"; the first were people from the Republic of Ireland born before 1949 who already claimed subject status, and the second covered a number of people who had previously been considered "British subjects without citizenship", and were not considered citizens of any other country. This second group were predominantly residents of colonies which had become independent, but who had not become citizens of the new country. The status cannot be inherited, and is lost on the acquisition of any other citizenship; it will therefore cease to exist on the death of the last remaining subjects.

Citizen: A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.

And still unable to answer a simple question.

walrusgumble · 27-04-2014 2:38pm

alastair wrote: »

More dissembling, and still unable to answer a simple question.

I have answered each point, in detail. You have given NO examples of how the said regions differ in religion (in reality) or politically (to rebut the fact that they have the same parties and swear allegiance to the British Monarch as oppose to Scottish monarch or that what goes on in England really is all that matters), you failed to explain how the sporting culture is truely disctinct from the other,

And despite several requests for you to explain it, you have failed, miserably, to explain the bland description of " different cultural cornerstones"

It aint for me to hold your hand on that. You stated it, you prove them.you simply cling onto label differences and ignore the reality that there is no core distinction that make them obvious

Again, just to spell it out, yet original ststatement was about "obvious" and "disctinct" cultural identity that makes it a nation, separate from the others in the UK.the key ti the issue are the words obvious and "distinct"

NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY YOU BAR BLAND COMMENTS

What is wrong, "afraid"?

Should Ireland join the Commonwealth

Comments