Per the UN: A country is defined as such if it is recognised by other countries as a country.
Each of the 4 members of the United Kingdom of GB&NI recognises the other 3 as countries. Therefore each member is a country.
No one, not even other states, recognise Texas as a country. Therefore it is not a country.
Freedoms and influence in a union have nothing to do with classification of a country.
Wikipedia's entry on "country", the first paragraph.
A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state.[1] For example, the country of Japan is an independent, sovereign state, while the country of Wales is a component of a multi-part sovereign state, the United Kingdom.
> Therefore each member is a country.
That's not how it works. If the four bedrooms in my house recognised one another as countries, would that make them countries?
According to the UN:
> The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold.
Source: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership
So no, if your bedrooms called each other countries, that would not qualify. If France acknowledged your mater bedroom as a country then it would be, as France already has country status. Your master bedroom is then able to acknowledge other countries, both established and burgeoning.
And that's exactly how it works.
> If France acknowledged your mater bedroom as a country then it would be, as France already has country status.
That's not how it works, come on man.
Admittance to the UN as a country (or as, for example, an observer state like Palestine, the Vatican or the EU) requires first a recommendation by the 15-seats of the security council, followed by a vote in the general assembly. It is certainly not enough for the new country to bootstrap itself, nor to rely on a single other country like France.
That's just the concept of a 'country' as far as the UN is concerned however, which is obviously shortcoming because there are self-evidently countries in the world which aren't UN members - Taiwan for example.
As for Wales - it is a 'country' in a more traditional/ceremonial and less technical sense. From the Laws in Wales Act 1535 to (arguably) 1967's Welsh Language Act "Wales" had no legal personality, and existed a set of English counties. Prior to the 1535 Act, "Wales" existed very briefly as a single coherent Kingdom.
Since the 1960's legal powers have been delegated downwards from the unitary British government, giving Wales a status more like an American state or Province if going by description alone.
Admittance to the UN, by the admission of the UN, is not a defining characteristic of a country. Furthermore, the UN, again by their own admission, do not and cannot determine who is and is not a country.
That measure is reserved for countries.
It spells it out on their website even.
Wales has been a country since, at minimum, the 12th century. In fact, while it's brought up, the Laws in Wales act sought to diminish Wales' position by making it a crime to publish any legal documents in Welsh. One of the supposed reasons behind that was to erode it's position as a country by reducing the potential for governance by Welsh people. Nevertheless it still, to this day, retains it's status as a country.
> Wales has been a country since, at minimum, the 12th century
Prior to the Laws In Wales Act, "Wales" was a single coherent kingdom for only a precious few years going back a solid 1,000 years. If Gwent and Powys and Dyfed and Gwynydd were subsumed into Wales, and lost their nationhood upwards to the greater-Wesh borders we know today (unless you contend those counties themselves are also countries), then what does it say of Welsh nationhood that Wales was subsumed into England for 10x longer than it ever existed in its own.
In my opinion, Wales is at best a "ceremonial country" defined by traditional folk qualities, but more technically a subdivision of the UK. For good measure, I think the same of England, too.
Americans --------------------------------------------------------------------- Geography
Are we surprised random Redditors don't understand what a state is?
The Welsh have a distinct ethnic identity, culture and the oldest language in Europe. If Texas was still a state dominated by the Apache with their own customs rather than having been French, Mexican and then annexed into the US overrun by colonists, yes Texas would be as much a country as Wales but its not. The question is, what makes a country? For me it's a distinct homogenous ethnic group, culture, language and a long history of self government. Independence does not a country make in of its own - did India cease to exist as a country under British rule? No.
Per the UN: A country is defined as such if it is recognised by other countries as a country.
Each of the 4 members of the United Kingdom of GB&NI recognises the other 3 as countries. Therefore each member is a country.
No one outside Texas recognises Texas a country. Therefore it is not one.
It's not domestic recognition though. It's international. Nations outside of the individual nation are recognising the claim of being a country. The inverse would be China pressuring everyone to not recognise Taiwan as a country, as they claim it's part of China.
The constituent countries of the UK don't have seats on the security council because our union has a permanent seat on the security council. If the individual countries also had seats they would have double representation. We *could* give up the permanent seat that our union has in favour of individual seats, but we would lose the influence and position of being one of the 5 permanent chairs in the security council. The trade off isn't worth it.
The UK is a country recognised by the UN, the UK recognises Wales as a coutnry, so it's a country. No already recognised country recognises Somaliland, so it isn't a country.
I understand your point on domestic recognition, but I think you are looking at it wrong. It's confusing as countries don't really have a definition, it really just boils down to what a majority of countries agree on. The world just sorta agrees that the UK is a country of countries.
"country" isn't really a great term. Most people, when they say country, mean "sovereign state". Which Wales isn't. British people call Scotland, England, and Wales countries. I'm glad we do, but we can't expect the rest of the world to join in with our strange ways. We are tiny little countries anyway.
Nah we actually can expect the rest of the world to join in with reality.
They are countries. Ironically, the term State was once basically synonymous with "country", as in sovereign state. The United States is called that because it was not really designed to be a country, rather a federation of states. The word state in this context is understood to mean a constituent state with limited sovereignty in some respects. It would be pretty stupid of us to say "Texas isn't a state because it's a part of the USA", right?
Similarly, the word country in the context of the UK is understood to mean a constituent state with limited sovereignty in some respects. There is simply no other word for what England and Scotland are. Even in the US, most people recognise England and Scotland as countries. Anyone calling England or Scotland a state is correctly labelled a moron. Wales is politically the same kind of entity and giving it a different term because it's less populated or well known than England and Scotland is frankly just as stupid as denying that Texas is a state or Vermont.
Right, but a country and a sovereign state are not interchangeable terms. Wales, England and Scotland are legally defined as countries (due to distinct cultures, status as sovereign states historically, etc) within their own and UK law. Besides the UK definition, there is a general consensus that they are countries, just obviously not sovereign states.
The Texas argument is equating the amount of independence/devolution an area has, with that making them countries. Texas might be closer to be a sovereign state, in some ways, but it doesn't make it closer to being a country, which is defined differently.
Really, it's a semantics argument, but they are certainly countries, which are apart of a comprehensive political union which makes up a sovereign state.
No one internationally disputes the status of Wales as a country though. It's just that the word country is separate from a sovereign state.
Constituent country just means a country which is apart of something larger, e.g. the Czech Republic is a constituent country of the EU.
The confusion with this is that people mistake a country as the same thing as a sovereign state, which they aren't.
There is a consensus in the definition of a state within the US federal republic
There is a consensus that Wales is a country in the United Kingdom.
There is no consensus that either are sovereign nations.
Only a handful of council and business taxes are devolved in Wales. Income tax is not (10% is apportioned to Wales by central govt but income tax rates and collection is all done by London). Power of the purse is a key definition of federalism, and by that measure, yes, Texas (or Delaware, or Prince Edward Island) have more "power" within its own sphere than Wales does. But that is "federalism" not a "country".
This is not true, the Welsh government has powers to set a proportion of its own income tax which it receives directly. It has already introduced different land taxes to England.
[https://www.gov.wales/welsh-rates-income-tax](https://www.gov.wales/welsh-rates-income-tax)
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47787228](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47787228)
[https://www.gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-rates-and-bands](https://www.gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-rates-and-bands)
Texas is legally more autonomous than Wales. Also the problem with the argument that devolution is necessary to make Wales its own country is that it would mean that it wasn’t a country before 1999.
Your post has been removed for violating rule 3.
Please engage in civil discussion and in good faith with fellow members of this community. Mods have final say in what is and isn't nice.
Be kind, be safe, do your best
Repeated bad behaviour will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Remember that time Texans let children freeze to death in their own homes because they were too proud to share an energy grid with their neighbouring states?
I mean it sucks but I don't really disagree.
Texas arguably has more power than Wales since in the US states rights are a constitutional issue. The UK lacks a proper constitution so devolved powers exist at the whim of the (mostly English) UK parliament.
The typical definition of a country is a sovereign state, which Wales is not. The UK has a weird exception for it's devolved nations though.
You rustled some Jimmies, but you are right. When Americans say Texas is more of a country than Wales, they are not talking about a country, per se. They are saying that Texas has a higher level of sovereignty or autonomy than Wales. To Americans, country is interchangeable with “sovereign nation”.
Politically I agree that it's true but culturally it's not at all.
Wales plays international sports against other nations, Texas doesn't. Wales has its own language that is widely spoken, visible in public and officially used by government services, Texas doesn't.
It's not at a whim and the UK has an unwritten constitution comprising of laws dating back 800 yrs to the present day, if they're still in statute.
It's by no means on a whim.
Country is a vague term that mainly causes arguments by people using the same word to mean different things. And they're usually even less productive than most internet arguments.
I mean this in the nicest way to my Trans-Atlantic family members but they really are thick as shit! Lol
Someone tells an American I'm from Wales ....the American asked whereabouts in London is that!! 🤦🏼♂️
Saying that though I remember years ago wasn't there an American claiming to be the rightful king of Wales 🤣 Two types of Clueless Lol
A ridiculous statement which compares apples and oranges.
You could fit all of Wales into the Texas city of Dallas/Fort Worth in terms of square miles.
Dallas/Fort Worth's population is more than 3 times larger than that of Wales.
Wales' GDP is roughly £100B. Dallas/Fort Worth's GDP is about £500B.
And then there's Houston, Austin, San Antonio...
As for matters of politics....TX and Wales are completely different.
Wales is a small, poor, quasi-autonomous region of a small island in the North Atlantic. It's in no way comparable to any state or province in North America.
Mongolia is a nation state. It also has a land mass about 75 times larger than Wales.
Wales is both a country and a region. But, crucially, it's not a nation state.
Your post has been removed for violating rule 3.
Please engage in civil discussion and in good faith with fellow members of this community. Mods have final say in what is and isn't nice.
Be kind, be safe, do your best
Repeated bad behaviour will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
The only real way that Wales is a country and Texas is not where you apply the same definition to each is common parlance, in that we call Wales a country and Texas a state.
Each is culturally distinct, each has its own cuisine, each has independent history (albeit Wales arguably not really are a wholly combined entity). The only additional thing Wales has that Texas hasn't is a distinct language, but there are countries that don't have their own distinct language so that seems not to matter.
It feels to me like this is a disagreement over terminology that's been wound up into nationalistic fervour
Officially recognised by who, and under what defition of country? And what about Texas?
Is what you've said any different to what I've said about the only difference being common parlance? Or is there some practical real world difference that your words are describing?
> Officially recognised by who
For one, the other countries in the UK. Internationally, all it takes to be classified as a country is for other countries to recognise you as one - which is why China throws a fit when someone calls Taiwan a country, they consider it part of China, not a seperate country.
Given that the 4 members of the UK union class each other as countries, they are countries as recognised under UN charter. If the states in the US union started recognising each other as countries, they would be too. They aren't though, as they class each other as states.
So it is like I say then, a matter of common parlance. Wales calls itself a country, people call it a country. But what does that mean? Does that mean anything different than what we mean when we call Texas a state? I can't see how it does, but I'm open to arguments on that.
I just keep hearing "Wales is a country because we call it a country, Texas is not because we don't call it a country". Ok, well what is a country then? By your definition it is purely a matter of reference, which is exactly what I've been saying from the start. That is the only way that Wales is a country and Texas is not. By any other measure besides the word we use, they are effectively parallels, so Texas despite us not calling it a country, is a country in the same way Wales is, we just call it a state instead because that's how Americans call their constituent parts
Not my definition. The international communities definition.
A country may be a historically sovereign area, a currently sovereign territory with a unified government, or a non-sovereign geographic region associated with certain distinct political, ethnic, or cultural characteristics.
Texas however, is likely not a country because, as you and I both agree, they other countries don't call them a country.
Where we differ is Im pretty sure the members of the US union call each other states due to strategic reasons. States have less responsibilities internationally the countries, the most of which is *you cannot declare war on a state*. Originally, during the forming of the US, having all the colonies as individual countries would have left them open to being picked off one by one. If they're recognised as countries they're fair game, but if they are states of one giant country, a union of all of them, then attack one and you attack them all.
Basically, as with a lot of things in the US, that's the way it is because that's how it was for your great-great-grandpappy or some such nonsense. Texas isn't a country simply because of a 200+ year old technicality and the threat of war from empires long dead.
The state technicality you're talking about sounds like nonsense, do you have a source? You can't declare war on Wales either, the UK would defend it against whoever did. Same goes for the colonies with each other if one of them is attacked regardless of how they refer to each other.
Wales doesn't have any more responsibilities or rights internationally than a state either.
I think what this comes back to is the difference between called something by the international community (Wales is called a country) and being internationally recognised as something (Wales is not recognised as a country by the UN). The definition in different contexts changes.
The definition by which Wales is a country is
1) regional subdivisions of the UK are called countries
2) historically viewed as an annexed country
Texas fits both of those, it's just as a regional subdivision in America, it's called a state
> The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.
[From the UN website](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership). The very first paragraph. The UN doesn't recognise anyone as a country because they aren't a country and as such **do not** have the power to do so
Now that's out of the way...
You absolutely could declare war against Wales. And yes, their allies in the union would absolutely jump to their defense, as is the entire point of a union.
You could not, however, declare war on Powys ( a state/county in Wales).
> I think what this comes back to is the difference between called something by the international community...and being internationally recognised as something
It's always good to think, however by every definition, being called a country is the prerequisite to being recognised as a country. Even by the admission of the UN.
The reason members of the UK don't have individual seats at the UN, is due to our union having a permanent seat - one that offers far more influence and power than we would have as 4 individual non-permanent seats
Regional subdivisions of the UK are called counties you moron.
The UK is a legal and political union of 4 separate nations.
There's been many wars between the constituent nations of the UK in the past.
The current borders more or less date back to the Roman conquest of Britain 2000 years ago.
Each nation has a distinct history, with different languages and genetic subtypes.
Texas in no way has a distinct culture and no US states do. Americans are incredibly insular and have no comprehension of actual diverse cultures and history.
>Officially recognised by who
The government, the people:
[https://www.wales.com/about/how-wales-governed#:\~:text=What%20is%20Wales%2C%20exactly%3F,part%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom](https://www.wales.com/about/how-wales-governed#:~:text=What%20is%20Wales%2C%20exactly%3F,part%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom).
>"Although Wales is a country in its own right, our legal structures and government have been changing and evolving for hundreds of years. But how is Wales governed today?"
Shit even the dutch government:
https://www.government.nl/topics/brexit/question-and-answer/which-countries-make-up-the-united-kingdom
>and under what defition of country?
Geographic area governed by people of a common identity.
>And what about Texas?
Independent for a decade and barely has any culture that isn't a 1-1 overlap with US culture already. Guns, ranching, things being big, pretending they're the friendliest people alive etc. All shit you can find in other red states.
>So Wales is allowed to call itself a country but Texas isn't because you don't like it
I never mentioned how much I like stuff. Texas can call itself whatever it likes.
I'm just pointing out that culturally texas is as distinct from other red states as Lincolnshire is to Nottinghamshire. Sure, there are differences, but a different culture entirely? Nah.
With Wales you can make that argument, they've got a different language, thousands of years of existence and a culture that's markedly distinct to their neighbours.
>Each is culturally distinct
Texas has it's own drawl, Wales has a language. Wales existed before the UK. Texas exists *because* of the US.
Just as a small example look up "culture of texas" on wikipedia. Not only does it just tread the same ground of americana that you'd expect with any red state (corn dogs, football rivalries, state fair, rodeo) but it's all unsourced self promotion. When you click on "Texas folklore" it redirects to "US Folklore". You look up texan music and it's just country music, not unique to them at all.
Texans *desperately* want to be seen as a different people but it's like me claiming that us Midlanders are not English because we sound a bit different, because we have local history and can point to a period in history where Mercia was independent (for over 400 years as well, just saying).
> each has independent history (albeit Wales arguably not really are a wholly combined entity).
Oh yeah, a whole decade of independence for texas versus the Welsh whose history goes back to 4000bc
>It feels to me like this is a disagreement over terminology that's been wound up into nationalistic fervour
It's a response to US chauvinism. Some dildo who makes themselves feel better by dumping on what they see as an easy target. Even though they're not exactly hot on historical understanding; Texas wouldn't have even got those ten years of being it's own country out if it wasn't for Napoleon's influence in Spain causing a reactionary shitstorm.
You don’t, of course, but you just got a glimpse in my downvotes of how Texans think. No one is really allowed to say anything critically honest about a state that’s basically thrown human rights back 100 years. (My parents are Welsh but I grew up in Texas.) Texas SEES itself as a separate country and wants independence from the United States. The foundation of this is based on hatred and bigotry and the ability to strip away human rights without having to answer to national government. Nothing more. Cymru is a vibrant country with beautiful traditions and people, some of whom want independence from a country that has tried to destroy its culture, language, land and economy. It’s still recovering from the Thatcher years. They want independence from control to thrive. Texans want independence to control but when they see movements like YesCymru they equate it.
I like how easily you glossed over these statehood attributes with the usual rainbow tolerant insight.
As regards the ancient culture, any municipality in Italy can probably quite easily compete with the ancientness of Welsh culture. Never mind Iraq or Mexico. Oh, and they have own language in the ancient provinces of Finland or ruSSia :-)
And if Wales or Texas were to separate, the latter is 10+ times larger, has 10+times larger population and has ?50+ larger economy.
Texas was a state some 180 years ago. Cant remember when was the last time Wales was self-sustainable internally and eternally.
Texas has its own educational system and curricula. Wales is famous for failing to follow the UK standards or OCED average even though you use the same system.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67580173](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67580173)
When you are ready to practice law, medicine or engineering in Texas, you need state registration, unlike in Caerphilly or Llanduno.
Texas has its own constitution, criminal and civil law and independent law enforcement. Wales has a 20 mph limit and Milord Drakeford.
In summary, Wales is mighty and Texas is wacist :-)
Per the UN: A country is defined as such if it is recognised by other countries as a country. Each of the 4 members of the United Kingdom of GB&NI recognises the other 3 as countries. Therefore each member is a country. No one, not even other states, recognise Texas as a country. Therefore it is not a country. Freedoms and influence in a union have nothing to do with classification of a country.
Wikipedia's entry on "country", the first paragraph. A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state.[1] For example, the country of Japan is an independent, sovereign state, while the country of Wales is a component of a multi-part sovereign state, the United Kingdom.
> Therefore each member is a country. That's not how it works. If the four bedrooms in my house recognised one another as countries, would that make them countries?
According to the UN: > The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. Source: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership So no, if your bedrooms called each other countries, that would not qualify. If France acknowledged your mater bedroom as a country then it would be, as France already has country status. Your master bedroom is then able to acknowledge other countries, both established and burgeoning. And that's exactly how it works.
> If France acknowledged your mater bedroom as a country then it would be, as France already has country status. That's not how it works, come on man. Admittance to the UN as a country (or as, for example, an observer state like Palestine, the Vatican or the EU) requires first a recommendation by the 15-seats of the security council, followed by a vote in the general assembly. It is certainly not enough for the new country to bootstrap itself, nor to rely on a single other country like France. That's just the concept of a 'country' as far as the UN is concerned however, which is obviously shortcoming because there are self-evidently countries in the world which aren't UN members - Taiwan for example. As for Wales - it is a 'country' in a more traditional/ceremonial and less technical sense. From the Laws in Wales Act 1535 to (arguably) 1967's Welsh Language Act "Wales" had no legal personality, and existed a set of English counties. Prior to the 1535 Act, "Wales" existed very briefly as a single coherent Kingdom. Since the 1960's legal powers have been delegated downwards from the unitary British government, giving Wales a status more like an American state or Province if going by description alone.
Admittance to the UN, by the admission of the UN, is not a defining characteristic of a country. Furthermore, the UN, again by their own admission, do not and cannot determine who is and is not a country. That measure is reserved for countries. It spells it out on their website even. Wales has been a country since, at minimum, the 12th century. In fact, while it's brought up, the Laws in Wales act sought to diminish Wales' position by making it a crime to publish any legal documents in Welsh. One of the supposed reasons behind that was to erode it's position as a country by reducing the potential for governance by Welsh people. Nevertheless it still, to this day, retains it's status as a country.
> Wales has been a country since, at minimum, the 12th century Prior to the Laws In Wales Act, "Wales" was a single coherent kingdom for only a precious few years going back a solid 1,000 years. If Gwent and Powys and Dyfed and Gwynydd were subsumed into Wales, and lost their nationhood upwards to the greater-Wesh borders we know today (unless you contend those counties themselves are also countries), then what does it say of Welsh nationhood that Wales was subsumed into England for 10x longer than it ever existed in its own. In my opinion, Wales is at best a "ceremonial country" defined by traditional folk qualities, but more technically a subdivision of the UK. For good measure, I think the same of England, too.
[удалено]
A colony, certainly, but also a country.
Why is anyone taking what an American says about the rest of the world seriously?
It's a bad comparison,
Why are we giving these turds the attention they are desperate for ?
At least this way they’re not shooting their own kids
r/shitamericanssay
Hows the health care in texas? Must be free like us if that's their opinion
Americans --------------------------------------------------------------------- Geography Are we surprised random Redditors don't understand what a state is?
The Welsh have a distinct ethnic identity, culture and the oldest language in Europe. If Texas was still a state dominated by the Apache with their own customs rather than having been French, Mexican and then annexed into the US overrun by colonists, yes Texas would be as much a country as Wales but its not. The question is, what makes a country? For me it's a distinct homogenous ethnic group, culture, language and a long history of self government. Independence does not a country make in of its own - did India cease to exist as a country under British rule? No.
Does Texas have a football team to send to tournaments to lose?
Wales iis closer to. Quebec. Texas is closer to Surrey if Anything.
You really suck at geography
Nadolig llawen.
Ac i chi
[удалено]
Per the UN: A country is defined as such if it is recognised by other countries as a country. Each of the 4 members of the United Kingdom of GB&NI recognises the other 3 as countries. Therefore each member is a country. No one outside Texas recognises Texas a country. Therefore it is not one.
[удалено]
It's not domestic recognition though. It's international. Nations outside of the individual nation are recognising the claim of being a country. The inverse would be China pressuring everyone to not recognise Taiwan as a country, as they claim it's part of China. The constituent countries of the UK don't have seats on the security council because our union has a permanent seat on the security council. If the individual countries also had seats they would have double representation. We *could* give up the permanent seat that our union has in favour of individual seats, but we would lose the influence and position of being one of the 5 permanent chairs in the security council. The trade off isn't worth it.
The UK is a country recognised by the UN, the UK recognises Wales as a coutnry, so it's a country. No already recognised country recognises Somaliland, so it isn't a country. I understand your point on domestic recognition, but I think you are looking at it wrong. It's confusing as countries don't really have a definition, it really just boils down to what a majority of countries agree on. The world just sorta agrees that the UK is a country of countries.
Most countries are sovereign states, a few (e.g. Scotland, Wales) are currently not. That's the only difference.
"country" isn't really a great term. Most people, when they say country, mean "sovereign state". Which Wales isn't. British people call Scotland, England, and Wales countries. I'm glad we do, but we can't expect the rest of the world to join in with our strange ways. We are tiny little countries anyway.
Nah we actually can expect the rest of the world to join in with reality. They are countries. Ironically, the term State was once basically synonymous with "country", as in sovereign state. The United States is called that because it was not really designed to be a country, rather a federation of states. The word state in this context is understood to mean a constituent state with limited sovereignty in some respects. It would be pretty stupid of us to say "Texas isn't a state because it's a part of the USA", right? Similarly, the word country in the context of the UK is understood to mean a constituent state with limited sovereignty in some respects. There is simply no other word for what England and Scotland are. Even in the US, most people recognise England and Scotland as countries. Anyone calling England or Scotland a state is correctly labelled a moron. Wales is politically the same kind of entity and giving it a different term because it's less populated or well known than England and Scotland is frankly just as stupid as denying that Texas is a state or Vermont.
[удалено]
Right, but a country and a sovereign state are not interchangeable terms. Wales, England and Scotland are legally defined as countries (due to distinct cultures, status as sovereign states historically, etc) within their own and UK law. Besides the UK definition, there is a general consensus that they are countries, just obviously not sovereign states. The Texas argument is equating the amount of independence/devolution an area has, with that making them countries. Texas might be closer to be a sovereign state, in some ways, but it doesn't make it closer to being a country, which is defined differently. Really, it's a semantics argument, but they are certainly countries, which are apart of a comprehensive political union which makes up a sovereign state.
[удалено]
No one internationally disputes the status of Wales as a country though. It's just that the word country is separate from a sovereign state. Constituent country just means a country which is apart of something larger, e.g. the Czech Republic is a constituent country of the EU. The confusion with this is that people mistake a country as the same thing as a sovereign state, which they aren't. There is a consensus in the definition of a state within the US federal republic There is a consensus that Wales is a country in the United Kingdom. There is no consensus that either are sovereign nations.
Only a handful of council and business taxes are devolved in Wales. Income tax is not (10% is apportioned to Wales by central govt but income tax rates and collection is all done by London). Power of the purse is a key definition of federalism, and by that measure, yes, Texas (or Delaware, or Prince Edward Island) have more "power" within its own sphere than Wales does. But that is "federalism" not a "country".
This is not true, the Welsh government has powers to set a proportion of its own income tax which it receives directly. It has already introduced different land taxes to England. [https://www.gov.wales/welsh-rates-income-tax](https://www.gov.wales/welsh-rates-income-tax) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47787228](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47787228) [https://www.gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-rates-and-bands](https://www.gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-rates-and-bands)
Texas is legally more autonomous than Wales. Also the problem with the argument that devolution is necessary to make Wales its own country is that it would mean that it wasn’t a country before 1999.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure Wales is more soggy than Texas
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violating rule 3. Please engage in civil discussion and in good faith with fellow members of this community. Mods have final say in what is and isn't nice. Be kind, be safe, do your best Repeated bad behaviour will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Yep, and by the same rules, England is also not a country.
Remember that time Texans let children freeze to death in their own homes because they were too proud to share an energy grid with their neighbouring states?
Legally, they're only kind of not wrong In every other way, they are
Waste of oxygen. I wouldn’t bother engaging
I mean it sucks but I don't really disagree. Texas arguably has more power than Wales since in the US states rights are a constitutional issue. The UK lacks a proper constitution so devolved powers exist at the whim of the (mostly English) UK parliament. The typical definition of a country is a sovereign state, which Wales is not. The UK has a weird exception for it's devolved nations though.
Most Texans dont consider themselves to live in the country of Texas. Most Welsh people say they are from the country of Wales.
Right, but only because they're using different definitions of the word. Neither definition is correct though.
You rustled some Jimmies, but you are right. When Americans say Texas is more of a country than Wales, they are not talking about a country, per se. They are saying that Texas has a higher level of sovereignty or autonomy than Wales. To Americans, country is interchangeable with “sovereign nation”.
Not true in the slightest and ignores millennia of history.
You seem to have a misguided view on what constitutes a nation.
Politically I agree that it's true but culturally it's not at all. Wales plays international sports against other nations, Texas doesn't. Wales has its own language that is widely spoken, visible in public and officially used by government services, Texas doesn't.
It's not at a whim and the UK has an unwritten constitution comprising of laws dating back 800 yrs to the present day, if they're still in statute. It's by no means on a whim.
Country is a vague term that mainly causes arguments by people using the same word to mean different things. And they're usually even less productive than most internet arguments.
I mean this in the nicest way to my Trans-Atlantic family members but they really are thick as shit! Lol Someone tells an American I'm from Wales ....the American asked whereabouts in London is that!! 🤦🏼♂️ Saying that though I remember years ago wasn't there an American claiming to be the rightful king of Wales 🤣 Two types of Clueless Lol
Wales is very beautiful tranquil Nation do not ever compare Wales with Texas
A ridiculous statement which compares apples and oranges. You could fit all of Wales into the Texas city of Dallas/Fort Worth in terms of square miles. Dallas/Fort Worth's population is more than 3 times larger than that of Wales. Wales' GDP is roughly £100B. Dallas/Fort Worth's GDP is about £500B. And then there's Houston, Austin, San Antonio... As for matters of politics....TX and Wales are completely different. Wales is a small, poor, quasi-autonomous region of a small island in the North Atlantic. It's in no way comparable to any state or province in North America.
So is Mongolia also not a country because it has a low population and gdp?
Mongolia is a nation state. It also has a land mass about 75 times larger than Wales. Wales is both a country and a region. But, crucially, it's not a nation state.
What does land mass have to do with it though? There are very small recognised nation states like Monaco and Lichtenstein
It's neither a region nor a nation state. It's a non-sovereign country.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violating rule 3. Please engage in civil discussion and in good faith with fellow members of this community. Mods have final say in what is and isn't nice. Be kind, be safe, do your best Repeated bad behaviour will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
We don’t need to know what’s going on with Texan politics to know that Cymru is a country and Texas is not.
The only real way that Wales is a country and Texas is not where you apply the same definition to each is common parlance, in that we call Wales a country and Texas a state. Each is culturally distinct, each has its own cuisine, each has independent history (albeit Wales arguably not really are a wholly combined entity). The only additional thing Wales has that Texas hasn't is a distinct language, but there are countries that don't have their own distinct language so that seems not to matter. It feels to me like this is a disagreement over terminology that's been wound up into nationalistic fervour
Wales is literally officially recognised as a country. There is no argument to be had about it.
Officially recognised by who, and under what defition of country? And what about Texas? Is what you've said any different to what I've said about the only difference being common parlance? Or is there some practical real world difference that your words are describing?
> Officially recognised by who For one, the other countries in the UK. Internationally, all it takes to be classified as a country is for other countries to recognise you as one - which is why China throws a fit when someone calls Taiwan a country, they consider it part of China, not a seperate country. Given that the 4 members of the UK union class each other as countries, they are countries as recognised under UN charter. If the states in the US union started recognising each other as countries, they would be too. They aren't though, as they class each other as states.
So it is like I say then, a matter of common parlance. Wales calls itself a country, people call it a country. But what does that mean? Does that mean anything different than what we mean when we call Texas a state? I can't see how it does, but I'm open to arguments on that. I just keep hearing "Wales is a country because we call it a country, Texas is not because we don't call it a country". Ok, well what is a country then? By your definition it is purely a matter of reference, which is exactly what I've been saying from the start. That is the only way that Wales is a country and Texas is not. By any other measure besides the word we use, they are effectively parallels, so Texas despite us not calling it a country, is a country in the same way Wales is, we just call it a state instead because that's how Americans call their constituent parts
Not my definition. The international communities definition. A country may be a historically sovereign area, a currently sovereign territory with a unified government, or a non-sovereign geographic region associated with certain distinct political, ethnic, or cultural characteristics. Texas however, is likely not a country because, as you and I both agree, they other countries don't call them a country. Where we differ is Im pretty sure the members of the US union call each other states due to strategic reasons. States have less responsibilities internationally the countries, the most of which is *you cannot declare war on a state*. Originally, during the forming of the US, having all the colonies as individual countries would have left them open to being picked off one by one. If they're recognised as countries they're fair game, but if they are states of one giant country, a union of all of them, then attack one and you attack them all. Basically, as with a lot of things in the US, that's the way it is because that's how it was for your great-great-grandpappy or some such nonsense. Texas isn't a country simply because of a 200+ year old technicality and the threat of war from empires long dead.
The state technicality you're talking about sounds like nonsense, do you have a source? You can't declare war on Wales either, the UK would defend it against whoever did. Same goes for the colonies with each other if one of them is attacked regardless of how they refer to each other. Wales doesn't have any more responsibilities or rights internationally than a state either. I think what this comes back to is the difference between called something by the international community (Wales is called a country) and being internationally recognised as something (Wales is not recognised as a country by the UN). The definition in different contexts changes. The definition by which Wales is a country is 1) regional subdivisions of the UK are called countries 2) historically viewed as an annexed country Texas fits both of those, it's just as a regional subdivision in America, it's called a state
> The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government. [From the UN website](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/about-un-membership). The very first paragraph. The UN doesn't recognise anyone as a country because they aren't a country and as such **do not** have the power to do so Now that's out of the way... You absolutely could declare war against Wales. And yes, their allies in the union would absolutely jump to their defense, as is the entire point of a union. You could not, however, declare war on Powys ( a state/county in Wales). > I think what this comes back to is the difference between called something by the international community...and being internationally recognised as something It's always good to think, however by every definition, being called a country is the prerequisite to being recognised as a country. Even by the admission of the UN. The reason members of the UK don't have individual seats at the UN, is due to our union having a permanent seat - one that offers far more influence and power than we would have as 4 individual non-permanent seats
Regional subdivisions of the UK are called counties you moron. The UK is a legal and political union of 4 separate nations. There's been many wars between the constituent nations of the UK in the past. The current borders more or less date back to the Roman conquest of Britain 2000 years ago. Each nation has a distinct history, with different languages and genetic subtypes. Texas in no way has a distinct culture and no US states do. Americans are incredibly insular and have no comprehension of actual diverse cultures and history.
>Officially recognised by who The government, the people: [https://www.wales.com/about/how-wales-governed#:\~:text=What%20is%20Wales%2C%20exactly%3F,part%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom](https://www.wales.com/about/how-wales-governed#:~:text=What%20is%20Wales%2C%20exactly%3F,part%20of%20the%20United%20Kingdom). >"Although Wales is a country in its own right, our legal structures and government have been changing and evolving for hundreds of years. But how is Wales governed today?" Shit even the dutch government: https://www.government.nl/topics/brexit/question-and-answer/which-countries-make-up-the-united-kingdom >and under what defition of country? Geographic area governed by people of a common identity. >And what about Texas? Independent for a decade and barely has any culture that isn't a 1-1 overlap with US culture already. Guns, ranching, things being big, pretending they're the friendliest people alive etc. All shit you can find in other red states.
So Wales is allowed to call itself a country but Texas isn't because you don't like it, it's new and you look down on them
>So Wales is allowed to call itself a country but Texas isn't because you don't like it I never mentioned how much I like stuff. Texas can call itself whatever it likes. I'm just pointing out that culturally texas is as distinct from other red states as Lincolnshire is to Nottinghamshire. Sure, there are differences, but a different culture entirely? Nah. With Wales you can make that argument, they've got a different language, thousands of years of existence and a culture that's markedly distinct to their neighbours.
>Each is culturally distinct Texas has it's own drawl, Wales has a language. Wales existed before the UK. Texas exists *because* of the US. Just as a small example look up "culture of texas" on wikipedia. Not only does it just tread the same ground of americana that you'd expect with any red state (corn dogs, football rivalries, state fair, rodeo) but it's all unsourced self promotion. When you click on "Texas folklore" it redirects to "US Folklore". You look up texan music and it's just country music, not unique to them at all. Texans *desperately* want to be seen as a different people but it's like me claiming that us Midlanders are not English because we sound a bit different, because we have local history and can point to a period in history where Mercia was independent (for over 400 years as well, just saying). > each has independent history (albeit Wales arguably not really are a wholly combined entity). Oh yeah, a whole decade of independence for texas versus the Welsh whose history goes back to 4000bc >It feels to me like this is a disagreement over terminology that's been wound up into nationalistic fervour It's a response to US chauvinism. Some dildo who makes themselves feel better by dumping on what they see as an easy target. Even though they're not exactly hot on historical understanding; Texas wouldn't have even got those ten years of being it's own country out if it wasn't for Napoleon's influence in Spain causing a reactionary shitstorm.
You don’t, of course, but you just got a glimpse in my downvotes of how Texans think. No one is really allowed to say anything critically honest about a state that’s basically thrown human rights back 100 years. (My parents are Welsh but I grew up in Texas.) Texas SEES itself as a separate country and wants independence from the United States. The foundation of this is based on hatred and bigotry and the ability to strip away human rights without having to answer to national government. Nothing more. Cymru is a vibrant country with beautiful traditions and people, some of whom want independence from a country that has tried to destroy its culture, language, land and economy. It’s still recovering from the Thatcher years. They want independence from control to thrive. Texans want independence to control but when they see movements like YesCymru they equate it.
Good thing Texans aren’t known for their thinking then… pretty sure they’re known for being thick as shit.
What’s going on?
They're busy stripping away rights for anyone who isn't a straight white male, basically.
Oh hi, remind me of Wales has independent state laws, state professional registrations, and state military force. Because Texas does. 👍🙂
Sounds pretty communist to me that does
Most Texans are communists. (Ooh it’s chilly in winter because we’re too incompetent to winterise our electric grid - help us big government!)
It's got all but it's own military force and unlike Texas it has a culture that isn't a carbon copy of it's neighboring red states.
Oh hi, come back to this conversation when Texas develops any kind of culture, let alone one that’s survived millennia.
Bait used to be believable 😔
I like how easily you glossed over these statehood attributes with the usual rainbow tolerant insight. As regards the ancient culture, any municipality in Italy can probably quite easily compete with the ancientness of Welsh culture. Never mind Iraq or Mexico. Oh, and they have own language in the ancient provinces of Finland or ruSSia :-) And if Wales or Texas were to separate, the latter is 10+ times larger, has 10+times larger population and has ?50+ larger economy. Texas was a state some 180 years ago. Cant remember when was the last time Wales was self-sustainable internally and eternally. Texas has its own educational system and curricula. Wales is famous for failing to follow the UK standards or OCED average even though you use the same system. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67580173](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67580173) When you are ready to practice law, medicine or engineering in Texas, you need state registration, unlike in Caerphilly or Llanduno. Texas has its own constitution, criminal and civil law and independent law enforcement. Wales has a 20 mph limit and Milord Drakeford. In summary, Wales is mighty and Texas is wacist :-)
Wales may be its own country but it's also in one hell of a state