6 Nations Rugby Tournament

[davecolorado72]

You may well think of yourself as a Coloradan first and American second, so it is over here - the Brits occupy the island of Great Britain and comprise of Welsh Scots and English who live in and move around - you get Scots in Wales and English in Scotland etc etc.

I think what you're saying is a bit misleading here. In regards to National identity the state I live in has nothing to with with my national identity. My passport lists me as a US citizen, not a Coloradoan. If the US is playing Mexico in the World Cup I am pulling for the US, not Colorado.

Now if someone invaded America and colonized my country then I am sure my passport may be a bit more muddled. And there may be some national anthem playing issues.

It would be like being from co cork in ireland. Cork is my county, not my nationality. What you're proposing is that these nations have dual national identity. What I am saying is that I don't think that is necessarily appropriate.

[Phil]

[QUOTE=davecolorado72;490639]I think what you're saying is a bit misleading here. In regards to National identity the state I live in has nothing to with with my national identity. My passport lists me as a US citizen, not a Coloradoan. If the US is playing Mexico in the World Cup I am pulling for the US, not Colorado. [QUOTE]

I think what you're saying is a bit misleading here. In regards to National identity the state I live in has nothing to with with my national identity. My passport lists me as a US citizen, not a Coloradoan. If the US is playing Mexico in the World Cup I am pulling for the US, not Colorado.

I think McClef might have used a better analogy. What we have in the UK is a bit like the US & Canada. Wales is a bit like Colorado in that it has been subsumed into England for hundreds of years and, although it likes to retain a regional identity, has not been a sovereign nation since it was conquered by the English and does not have its own system of laws and education but follows those of England. Scotland, however, always was an independent nation with its own kings, laws, language and customs and only entered into a mutually agreed union in 1707 because England feared an alliance between Scotland and France and the then ruling classes in Scotland had squandered their money on an ill-fated expedition to Central America (The Darien Scheme). They saw this as a way of recouping their losses (bought and sold for English gold - Robert Burns) and, as most of them already had land in England it made no great difference for them. This was nothing new, by the way. Comyn, Edward's puppet at the time of Wallace, himself held substantial estates in England and self-interest is always a powerful persuader. Votes for all was a non-existent joke in those days so it was never a democratic decision. I hope you see, therefore, why Scotland has a distinct national identity, quite separate from its southern neighbour, England in much the same way as Canada, I assume, does from the USA.

[McClef]

I apologise if I appear to have been misleading.

I was simply trying to point out that local loyalties can subsume wider ones which is why states or constituent countries of a greater whole like to have a wide degree of autonomy.

It is nothing to do with what citizenship shows on your passport which will reflect in any case the greater whole - US, UK, Canada or whatever.

In the case of Wales, as Phil points out, there never was a formal act of union - that same "proud Edward whose army was sent hamewards tae think again" foisted his eldest son as Prince of Wales and hence started the tradition of the male heir to the throne having this title. The "investiture" thing is much more modern!

Devolution is an ongoing process and Y Cynilliad Cymru - Welsh Assembly will gradually get more powers and become a Parliament like the Scottish one.

Such powers have been enjoyed by individual states (or provinces) for years or indeed centuries on the continent of North America - over here we are finally catching up!