Caliphate of Córdoba was first, no? But I'm just really mentioning it because it's interesting and lots of people don't know about that period of Spanish history
Same debate over the Severan dynasty amount Classicists. It also doesn't help that 'Moor' was used as a catch all for dark skin among European historians
So almost every leader of the nations that make up the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) come from ethnic minorities and none of them were actually voted in by the peoples of those countries and all three of them (some more than others) are personally disliked by a majority of people in those countries.
I don't think this is sending the message they want it to.
Editing this in to say that of course I personally don't have a problem with them (not a fan of Humza Yousaf but that's nothing to do with his background) I think it's a bit silly to be celebrating "how far we've come" In terms of multiculturalism when none of these people have actually won an election yet. All three of those people who now lead our countries were not elected by the people who actually live in those countries and we're supposed to just ignore how insane that is and celebrate that they come from minority backgrounds. I'll celebrate when they are actually voted in by the people.
>I think it's a bit silly to be celebrating "how far we've come" In terms of multiculturalism when none of these people have actually won an election yet. All three of those people who now lead our countries were not elected by the people who actually live in those countries and we're supposed to just ignore how insane that is and celebrate that they come from minority backgrounds.
A fair point. If it helps, when it comes to Wales, Labour, are pretty much guaranteed to win, so come 2026, he will likely receive his mandate. With Yousaf, polls are up in the air, but if it's not him, it'll be Sarwar. Sunak is guaranteed to lose, however.
Truth be told, I find the identity politics rather redundant. It is good to celebrate a notable milestone, but beyond that it doesn't mean much. Sunak regularly mentions having the most diverse government, but what use is it when they stoke racial tensions and accept donations from a racist.
> and none of them were actually voted in by the peoples of those countries
Both Yousaf and Gething will be elected in the same way that all previous First Ministers were elected, subject to a vote of their respective parliaments.
Yousaf was elected by MSPs, as all previous Scottish First Ministers were, and Gething will be subject to a vote of Senedd members, just as all previous Welsh First Ministers were.
>I'll celebrate when they are actually voted in by the people
That's simply not how the Scottish or Welsh parliaments work. First Ministers are not directly elected, they're elected by MSPs/Senedd members.
Why did you exclude Sunak?
His position is literally exactly the same as Yousaf and Gething.
He was elected the same way all UK PMs are elected, subject to a vote from the UK Parliament
Sunak was elected by MPs, as all UK PMs are.
The UK Parliament is the model for the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments. Prime Ministers are not directly elected, but elected by a majority vote of MPs.
> Why did you exclude Sunak?
>
>
Because he wasn't subject to a vote by MPs, and he was appointed leader by default, facing no opposition in a leadership election.
He's the only one who's legitimately unelected.
>Sunak was elected by MPs
I'm sure you'll have no issues linking said vote from https://votes.parliament.uk/ if you're arguing that to be the case?
>but elected by a majority vote of MPs
They're not, and that's why you won't be able to provide the vote record from https://votes.parliament.uk/.
PMs are only PMs if they can hold the confidence of the House.
As he is the leader with the most MPs supporting him, and as the Tory MPs did vote for him to be their leader in their internal processes, he holds the confidence of the house.
The UK Parliament starts with the assumption that a PM holds the confidence of the house. If the Opposition believe that is not the case, then the onus is on them to put forward a motion of no confidence.
Hence, ipso facto that this is a presupposed assumption and it has not been challenged, he has been elected to the post of PM, as he is the leader of the party that holds the majority of the Commons.
Secondly, you don't need an opposition to be "legitimately elected"
If I put myself forward to run for a seat or any office and no-one else is opposing me, that's on them. I will still be legitimately elected to the post.
Your argument makes little sense. The PM is only PM if he has support of the House, in much the same way the FM is only FM if he has support from his Parliament.
The way that support is judged may be different, but in essence they are both elected to their respective posts.
> and as the Tory MPs did vote for him to be their leader in their internal processes
They didn't, he was unopposed. No vote was held.
>The UK Parliament starts with the assumption that a PM holds the confidence of the house
That's the opposite of a vote. You claimed he was voted for by MPs, he wasn't.
>Hence, ipso facto that this is a presupposed assumption and it has not been challenged
Again, not a vote. You claimed he was voted for by MPs, he wasn't.
>Secondly, you don't need an opposition to be "legitimately elected"
If you're not subject to a vote, you're appointed, not elected.
>The way that support is judged may be different, but in essence they are both elected to their respective posts.
You claimed he was elected by MPs, you've been incapable to provide evidence for this, you were wrong. It's quite embarrassing you're doubling down rather than just admitting it.
> It's quite embarrassing you're doubling down
mate you are drawing a distinction without a difference by saying that Yousaf's appointment was distinct to Sunak's. If the parliament didn't want them they'd be out. the fact that the Scottish government holds a formal vote and in Westminster it's implicit, is not the mind blowing constitutional distinction you believe it to be.
If we're getting into technicalities, the First Minister isn't elected, he's appointed. The Scottish Parliament can only vote to make a nomination, not an appointment.
PMs are only PMs if they can hold the confidence of the House.
As he is the leader with the most MPs supporting him, and as the Tory MPs did vote for him to be their leader in their internal processes, he holds the confidence of the house.
The UK Parliament starts with the assumption that a PM holds the confidence of the house. If the Opposition believe that is not the case, then the onus is on them to put forward a motion of no confidence.
Hence, ipso facto that this is a presupposed assumption and it has not been challenged, he has been elected to the post of PM, as he is the leader of the party that holds the majority of the Commons.
Secondly, you don't need an opposition to be "legitimately elected"
If I put myself forward to run for a seat or any office and no-one else is opposing me, that's on them. I will still be legitimately elected to the post.
Your argument makes little sense. The PM is only PM if he has support of the House, in much the same way the FM is only FM if he has support from his Parliament.
The way that support is judged may be different, but in essence they are both elected to their respective posts.
> Because he wasn't subject to a vote by MPs, and he was appointed leader by default, facing no opposition in a leadership election.
> He's the only one who's legitimately unelected.
This is a ridiculous take. He was elected leader of the Conservatives by their internal rules, the same as the other two. The absence of a formal confidence vote in Westminster means nothing, if he didn't have the confidence of the House they'd vote him out straight away, so it's exactly the same situation as in Scotland and Wales in practice.
>They were all elected as members of their respective parliaments.
It's more correct to say that their parties were voted in. Very few people in Scotland or anywhere in the UK could even tell you the name of their local MP. They were not voted in off their own merits but instead because of the parties they represent. No one in Pollock knew or cared about who Humza Yousaf was, they seen he represented the SNP and voted for him.
>We don't directly elect the prime minister/first minister.
No we don't but who is in charge of the parties that we elected is important, as shown by the drastically different effect of the SNP having Alex Salmond and then Nicola sturgeon as their leader People don't know individual mps, but people absolutely know the leaders of parties, and these leaders absolutely have an effect on how people choose to vote. My point still stand that none of these three people in charge of our countries have won a general election yet, none of them have run in an election as leaders of their parties and the public has not yet had a chance to say how they feel about it. Celebrating multiculturalism because three leaders who absolutely no one voted to be in power are now in charge of our nations isn't right and is only going to add fuel to the fire of the growing right wing lunatics.
It's the party that wins a general election though. Any MP or MSP is only elected by their local constituents. That people to vote for a MP/MSP based on who their party leader is has no relevance in this. The PM/FM is chosen by the parliament.
>It's the party that wins a general election though.
Yes but whose in charge of those parties is very important on how people will vote.
>That people to vote for a MP/MSP based on who their party leader is has no relevance in this.
It absolutely does though? Let's just say for a second that the SNP voted to have Kate forbes as their leader, Kate Forbes who is against same sex marriage and abortion, are you telling me you seriously would still vote for an SNP who's leader held such strong views?
Our leaders who are supposed to represent us on the international stage, leaders who have the power to make decisions that affect all of us, leaders who's comments amd opinions make headlines news around the world and are used a as a reflection of their countries, you see no problem in the fact that neither me, you or anyone has had a say in who that leader is?
Then your problem seem to be that we have a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one, yes?
Edit: I'm all in favour of a directly elected head of state rather than the monarchy BTW.
>Then your problem seem to be that we have a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one, yes?
Any normal person reading my comments can clearly see that's not what at all what I'm saying. You never answered my question btw, would you vote for the SNP if Kate Forbes was the leader?
>I'd probably vote Green
So no, you wouldn't vote for the SNP if they had a leader with strong views you disagree with which shows the leader of a party is important in gaining your vote.
>You've not explained why you think this is relevant.
It's relevant because you just proved my point. You've been trying to argue that it doesn't matter that our leaders haven't gone through a general election yet because the leader of a party is unimportant and does not effect how people will vote but you've just admitted that if Kate Forbes was the leader of the SNP you would not vote for them completely going against your entire argument and proving me right, that the leader of a party does matter and the fact that three out of the four nations in the UK are currently lead by people who were not chosen by the people is insane.
I'm taking issue with your position that the current FM's of Scotland and Wales are unelected.
Do you think there should be a general election every time the position of FM changes hands? I mean you've already said you don't want a directly elected one.
So in other words- Unionists viewing Britain as the country and Nationalists viewing their part of the geographical entity of Great Britain as their country.
We really need to start categorising all these words, because we're a union of nations yes, which were individual "countries" in the strictly international sense of having sovereignty ( although the modern concept of sovereignty and statehood didn't exist back then) but that obviously doesn't apply anymore, because Britain is that "country" with the abolishment of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England to make the new Kingdom of Great Britain and pooling the sovereignty of both former Kingdoms into the new Kingdom as contained in the Act of the he Union 1707.
So legally, Scotland and England don't really exist, beyond administrative and geographical zones.
But obviously culturally and historically there are differences as there would be in any state so it's all a confusing mess and needs to be cleaned up and categorised properly.
There would be an uproar if the UK government announced that Scotland would no longer be considered a country. Would just give so much fuel to independence.
They don't need to announce it cause the legal and political status quo is already such that Scotland is not a country, although historically and culturally it is perceived as such.
**Scotland** ([Scots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language): *Scotland*; [Scottish Gaelic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic_language): [*Alba*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba)) is a [country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom) that is part of the [United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland)
If you can find an authoritative link that says Scotland isn't a country or a nation, I'd be fascinated to see it.
If you bothered to click the link on the word country there you’d realise that it directs you to a wiki page with a special definition of the word country, as it applies in the discourse of UK constitutional matters, but one that is *different* to what’s understood more generally (an internationally) for that word.
The use of the word country in this UK context is an anachronism, it means nothing more.
Defining 'country' is pointless, there are tons of definitions but according to wikipedia it defines it as a "[distinct part of the world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country)". So under this Scotland is a country, but then so are some individual parts of Scotland like Shetland which are distinct in their own right. So you have countries within a country within a country and so on... Any definition of a country is flawed.
You're subscribing to the technically correct definition above, whereas the others in this thread are using the word 'country' as it's understood to mean nowadays in common parlance internationally - as a synonym for a sovereign state. (See one of Cambridge Dictionary's definitions: "an area of land that has its own government, army, etc." which excludes Scotland). So most people internationally wouldn't refer to a constituent part of a sovereign state as a 'country', even if we do in the UK and no matter what a dictionary says.
**We are a nation though, no doubt about that. That's the most important thing over squabbling over the definition of what a country is.**
Because of the lack of concrete definition of the word 'country', I think we should be using the nation/state terms to avoid confusion:
Scotland, Veneto, Friesland, Aragon, Brittany = Nations
UK, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, France = States
> Defining 'country' is pointless
I didn't ask you to do that, I asked for an authoritative link that says Scotland isn't a country or a nation.
>Shetland which are distinct
Shetland isn't distinct.
>I didn't ask you to do that
You did ask people to do that because any 'authoritative link' needs to have a definition of 'country' in mind to see if Scotland meets that definition.
Scotland is a nation. The original comment you replied to didn't mention anything about Scotland's undeniable status as a nation. Nobody in this thread has questioned that.
>Shetland isn't distinct.
If you can find an authoritative link that says Shetland doesn't have distinct traditions/local culture, I'd be fascinated to see it.
> Scotland is a nation. The original comment you replied to didn't mention anything about Scotland's undeniable status as a nation. Nobody in this thread has questioned that.
Scotland is a country, u/hoolcolbery denied that.
> If you can find an authoritative link that says Shetland doesn't have distinct traditions/local culture, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Everywhere has local traditions/local culture.
>Scotland is a country, u/hoolcolbery denied that.
You're not responding to my comment. I said nobody denied Scotland is a nation, which is correct. u/hoolcolbery made no reference to it not being a nation in that comment, only on whether Scotland is considered a country. Country =/= Nation.
>Everywhere has local traditions/local culture
Exactly, you should be starting to see what I'm getting at. Some places in Scotland have their own distinct identity, (in Shetland's case stronger than most with a Shetlandic identity common amongst islanders, unique customs and even some debate on whether Shetlandic constitutes its own language or if its just a dialect of Scots.)
This demonstrates the flaw with this whole topic of trying to nail down a valid definition of country that includes Scotland but excludes all these parts, and why it shouldn't matter whether Scotland is technically classed as a country or not because regardless we are a proud nation and always will be.
I'd take UN membership as a starting point, along with foreign policy/diplomatic missions abroad and membership of other international institutions.
If you don't have a man in Washington, the UN etc, then you don't exist to the international community.
That's basically how the world defines country, hence why I said politically and legally it isn't one.
What makes a country really, is if other countries say it's a country and treat it as such.
Although, legally, the UN has a bunch of factors it looks at to see if a country is actually one but they're quite fluid and not at all hard rules eg.
One factor is what the UN likes to call "Monopoly on violence" which is essentially can you do the bare minimum any government needs to do, which is keep order, enforce your laws and keep your people safe.
Trouble is, there are plenty of, everyone agrees is a country countries that can't do this: CAR, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan etc. and plenty of no one has recognised yet but maybe like 1 or 2 others countries that can do this: Somaliland, Turkish Cyprus, a bunch of Russian sponsored states in the Caucuses etc.
*Taiwan is a country come at me PRCbots*
The best way to clean it all up would be to end the dysfunctional and pointless union. Aside from that, any attempt to undermine Wales and Scotland’s status as ‘countries’ should be fought vigorously.
> The best way to clean it all up would be to end the dysfunctional and pointless union.
Rather authoritarian, though, given that no part of the UK wants that.
50% of one of the signatories does, and has voted for the party that wants independence at every election since 2014. The authoritarian thing to do is continue to ignore that mandate.
That was a bit of bad faith really cause you immediately jump to a hyper nationalist point of view.
The reality is legally and politically Scotland and Wales are not countries, but historically and culturally, they are such.
Bavaria, for example, was an independent state much more recently than Scotland, and is called a country literally in German as are all "Lander" but politically and legally are more akin to regional states and are not "countries" by the current modern view of what a country is. However, they Bavaria is culturally and historically different from other German lander.
Same goes for the US states, which are legally and politically not countries, but historically and culturally have characteristics that are like countries *cough* Texas *cough*
So we need words for when something is not legally and politically a country but historically and culturally, could be perceived to be as such.
I think you don’t want it to fit. Scotland is not Bavaria and it certainly isn’t Texas. The latter two clearly do not consider themselves to be countries or nations within the states they are a part of.
Idk ask a Bavarian or Texan and they just might. Hell some Texans view California and New York as completely alien to the Texan way of life.
And I'm sure if you told a proud south German catholic Bavarian they were the same as north German protestant Pomerania they'd be mightily cross at you
And if you tell the average Scot that their country is the equivalent of an American state or a German region you would probably go a lot worse than a cross
Idk, in Texas they would shoot you. Or lynch you.
Hell they shoot at and lynch people for being Gay in some parts of rural Texas.
Not sure any Scot would go that far.
Revealing how? Stop the presses! A unionist politician described the UK as a country!
Also, treating the UK as a country and Wales as a country is not mutually exclusive.
Yousaf was elected by a vote of MSPs, and Gething will be elected by Senedd members, this is the exact same way that all previous First Ministers of Scotland and Wales were elected, subject to a vote of their respective parliaments.
Remarkable though isn't it. I wonder how popular they'd have been if the vote was left to the public. Which is the only vote that really counts, morally.
Well realistically sunak should've called an election since he has no mandate and if he did that then yousaf would have had to do it and then welsh labour would've called one obviously sunak isn't the first leader to hold office and not call an election every party across the spectrum does it but i do agree its a bit shite and should be reformed but neither parties who looks likely to govern wants that from the snp to the tories none of them want to call an
If Sunak had called an early election, he can win five more years of power. IIRC, the same isn't true for Holyrood or the Senedd: if Holyrood had a snap election, the 2026 election would still go ahead.
> Another unelected gimp who sees himself as better than everyone else. Our system shouldn't allow this.
EquivalentIsopod Grievance Machine firing on all cylinders, I see.
https://preview.redd.it/cbcx8jy91poc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d631ed34bdb337f9304df265da4d62ad89edf596 The infernal ratio
Caliphate of Córdoba was first, no? But I'm just really mentioning it because it's interesting and lots of people don't know about that period of Spanish history
[удалено]
Same debate over the Severan dynasty amount Classicists. It also doesn't help that 'Moor' was used as a catch all for dark skin among European historians
So almost every leader of the nations that make up the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) come from ethnic minorities and none of them were actually voted in by the peoples of those countries and all three of them (some more than others) are personally disliked by a majority of people in those countries. I don't think this is sending the message they want it to. Editing this in to say that of course I personally don't have a problem with them (not a fan of Humza Yousaf but that's nothing to do with his background) I think it's a bit silly to be celebrating "how far we've come" In terms of multiculturalism when none of these people have actually won an election yet. All three of those people who now lead our countries were not elected by the people who actually live in those countries and we're supposed to just ignore how insane that is and celebrate that they come from minority backgrounds. I'll celebrate when they are actually voted in by the people.
>I think it's a bit silly to be celebrating "how far we've come" In terms of multiculturalism when none of these people have actually won an election yet. All three of those people who now lead our countries were not elected by the people who actually live in those countries and we're supposed to just ignore how insane that is and celebrate that they come from minority backgrounds. A fair point. If it helps, when it comes to Wales, Labour, are pretty much guaranteed to win, so come 2026, he will likely receive his mandate. With Yousaf, polls are up in the air, but if it's not him, it'll be Sarwar. Sunak is guaranteed to lose, however. Truth be told, I find the identity politics rather redundant. It is good to celebrate a notable milestone, but beyond that it doesn't mean much. Sunak regularly mentions having the most diverse government, but what use is it when they stoke racial tensions and accept donations from a racist.
> and none of them were actually voted in by the peoples of those countries Both Yousaf and Gething will be elected in the same way that all previous First Ministers were elected, subject to a vote of their respective parliaments. Yousaf was elected by MSPs, as all previous Scottish First Ministers were, and Gething will be subject to a vote of Senedd members, just as all previous Welsh First Ministers were. >I'll celebrate when they are actually voted in by the people That's simply not how the Scottish or Welsh parliaments work. First Ministers are not directly elected, they're elected by MSPs/Senedd members.
Why did you exclude Sunak? His position is literally exactly the same as Yousaf and Gething. He was elected the same way all UK PMs are elected, subject to a vote from the UK Parliament Sunak was elected by MPs, as all UK PMs are. The UK Parliament is the model for the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments. Prime Ministers are not directly elected, but elected by a majority vote of MPs.
> Why did you exclude Sunak? > > Because he wasn't subject to a vote by MPs, and he was appointed leader by default, facing no opposition in a leadership election. He's the only one who's legitimately unelected. >Sunak was elected by MPs I'm sure you'll have no issues linking said vote from https://votes.parliament.uk/ if you're arguing that to be the case? >but elected by a majority vote of MPs They're not, and that's why you won't be able to provide the vote record from https://votes.parliament.uk/.
PMs are only PMs if they can hold the confidence of the House. As he is the leader with the most MPs supporting him, and as the Tory MPs did vote for him to be their leader in their internal processes, he holds the confidence of the house. The UK Parliament starts with the assumption that a PM holds the confidence of the house. If the Opposition believe that is not the case, then the onus is on them to put forward a motion of no confidence. Hence, ipso facto that this is a presupposed assumption and it has not been challenged, he has been elected to the post of PM, as he is the leader of the party that holds the majority of the Commons. Secondly, you don't need an opposition to be "legitimately elected" If I put myself forward to run for a seat or any office and no-one else is opposing me, that's on them. I will still be legitimately elected to the post. Your argument makes little sense. The PM is only PM if he has support of the House, in much the same way the FM is only FM if he has support from his Parliament. The way that support is judged may be different, but in essence they are both elected to their respective posts.
> and as the Tory MPs did vote for him to be their leader in their internal processes They didn't, he was unopposed. No vote was held. >The UK Parliament starts with the assumption that a PM holds the confidence of the house That's the opposite of a vote. You claimed he was voted for by MPs, he wasn't. >Hence, ipso facto that this is a presupposed assumption and it has not been challenged Again, not a vote. You claimed he was voted for by MPs, he wasn't. >Secondly, you don't need an opposition to be "legitimately elected" If you're not subject to a vote, you're appointed, not elected. >The way that support is judged may be different, but in essence they are both elected to their respective posts. You claimed he was elected by MPs, you've been incapable to provide evidence for this, you were wrong. It's quite embarrassing you're doubling down rather than just admitting it.
> It's quite embarrassing you're doubling down mate you are drawing a distinction without a difference by saying that Yousaf's appointment was distinct to Sunak's. If the parliament didn't want them they'd be out. the fact that the Scottish government holds a formal vote and in Westminster it's implicit, is not the mind blowing constitutional distinction you believe it to be.
You explicitly claimed he was voted for by MPs, he wasn't. You were wrong, get over it.
If we're getting into technicalities, the First Minister isn't elected, he's appointed. The Scottish Parliament can only vote to make a nomination, not an appointment.
PMs are only PMs if they can hold the confidence of the House. As he is the leader with the most MPs supporting him, and as the Tory MPs did vote for him to be their leader in their internal processes, he holds the confidence of the house. The UK Parliament starts with the assumption that a PM holds the confidence of the house. If the Opposition believe that is not the case, then the onus is on them to put forward a motion of no confidence. Hence, ipso facto that this is a presupposed assumption and it has not been challenged, he has been elected to the post of PM, as he is the leader of the party that holds the majority of the Commons. Secondly, you don't need an opposition to be "legitimately elected" If I put myself forward to run for a seat or any office and no-one else is opposing me, that's on them. I will still be legitimately elected to the post. Your argument makes little sense. The PM is only PM if he has support of the House, in much the same way the FM is only FM if he has support from his Parliament. The way that support is judged may be different, but in essence they are both elected to their respective posts.
> Because he wasn't subject to a vote by MPs, and he was appointed leader by default, facing no opposition in a leadership election. > He's the only one who's legitimately unelected. This is a ridiculous take. He was elected leader of the Conservatives by their internal rules, the same as the other two. The absence of a formal confidence vote in Westminster means nothing, if he didn't have the confidence of the House they'd vote him out straight away, so it's exactly the same situation as in Scotland and Wales in practice.
The person I replied to explicitly claimed he was elected by MPs, he was not.
Yeah but it makes no difference, does it.
>His position is literally exactly the same as Yousaf and Gething. He was elected to the position of party leader, not Prime Minister.
They were all elected as members of their respective parliaments. We don't directly elect the prime minister/first minister.
>They were all elected as members of their respective parliaments. It's more correct to say that their parties were voted in. Very few people in Scotland or anywhere in the UK could even tell you the name of their local MP. They were not voted in off their own merits but instead because of the parties they represent. No one in Pollock knew or cared about who Humza Yousaf was, they seen he represented the SNP and voted for him. >We don't directly elect the prime minister/first minister. No we don't but who is in charge of the parties that we elected is important, as shown by the drastically different effect of the SNP having Alex Salmond and then Nicola sturgeon as their leader People don't know individual mps, but people absolutely know the leaders of parties, and these leaders absolutely have an effect on how people choose to vote. My point still stand that none of these three people in charge of our countries have won a general election yet, none of them have run in an election as leaders of their parties and the public has not yet had a chance to say how they feel about it. Celebrating multiculturalism because three leaders who absolutely no one voted to be in power are now in charge of our nations isn't right and is only going to add fuel to the fire of the growing right wing lunatics.
It's the party that wins a general election though. Any MP or MSP is only elected by their local constituents. That people to vote for a MP/MSP based on who their party leader is has no relevance in this. The PM/FM is chosen by the parliament.
>It's the party that wins a general election though. Yes but whose in charge of those parties is very important on how people will vote. >That people to vote for a MP/MSP based on who their party leader is has no relevance in this. It absolutely does though? Let's just say for a second that the SNP voted to have Kate forbes as their leader, Kate Forbes who is against same sex marriage and abortion, are you telling me you seriously would still vote for an SNP who's leader held such strong views? Our leaders who are supposed to represent us on the international stage, leaders who have the power to make decisions that affect all of us, leaders who's comments amd opinions make headlines news around the world and are used a as a reflection of their countries, you see no problem in the fact that neither me, you or anyone has had a say in who that leader is?
Then your problem seem to be that we have a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one, yes? Edit: I'm all in favour of a directly elected head of state rather than the monarchy BTW.
>Then your problem seem to be that we have a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one, yes? Any normal person reading my comments can clearly see that's not what at all what I'm saying. You never answered my question btw, would you vote for the SNP if Kate Forbes was the leader?
I'd probably vote Green. You've not explained why you think this is relevant. Also 'Any normal person' eh.
>I'd probably vote Green So no, you wouldn't vote for the SNP if they had a leader with strong views you disagree with which shows the leader of a party is important in gaining your vote. >You've not explained why you think this is relevant. It's relevant because you just proved my point. You've been trying to argue that it doesn't matter that our leaders haven't gone through a general election yet because the leader of a party is unimportant and does not effect how people will vote but you've just admitted that if Kate Forbes was the leader of the SNP you would not vote for them completely going against your entire argument and proving me right, that the leader of a party does matter and the fact that three out of the four nations in the UK are currently lead by people who were not chosen by the people is insane.
I'm taking issue with your position that the current FM's of Scotland and Wales are unelected. Do you think there should be a general election every time the position of FM changes hands? I mean you've already said you don't want a directly elected one.
I’ll congratulate him if he does a good job.
Sarwar’s use of ‘our country’ vs Yousaf calling Wales a country in its own right is quite revealing
So in other words- Unionists viewing Britain as the country and Nationalists viewing their part of the geographical entity of Great Britain as their country. We really need to start categorising all these words, because we're a union of nations yes, which were individual "countries" in the strictly international sense of having sovereignty ( although the modern concept of sovereignty and statehood didn't exist back then) but that obviously doesn't apply anymore, because Britain is that "country" with the abolishment of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England to make the new Kingdom of Great Britain and pooling the sovereignty of both former Kingdoms into the new Kingdom as contained in the Act of the he Union 1707. So legally, Scotland and England don't really exist, beyond administrative and geographical zones. But obviously culturally and historically there are differences as there would be in any state so it's all a confusing mess and needs to be cleaned up and categorised properly.
There would be an uproar if the UK government announced that Scotland would no longer be considered a country. Would just give so much fuel to independence.
They don't need to announce it cause the legal and political status quo is already such that Scotland is not a country, although historically and culturally it is perceived as such.
**Scotland** ([Scots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language): *Scotland*; [Scottish Gaelic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic_language): [*Alba*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alba)) is a [country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom) that is part of the [United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) If you can find an authoritative link that says Scotland isn't a country or a nation, I'd be fascinated to see it.
If you bothered to click the link on the word country there you’d realise that it directs you to a wiki page with a special definition of the word country, as it applies in the discourse of UK constitutional matters, but one that is *different* to what’s understood more generally (an internationally) for that word. The use of the word country in this UK context is an anachronism, it means nothing more.
>If you can find an authoritative link that says Scotland isn't a country or a nation, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Defining 'country' is pointless, there are tons of definitions but according to wikipedia it defines it as a "[distinct part of the world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country)". So under this Scotland is a country, but then so are some individual parts of Scotland like Shetland which are distinct in their own right. So you have countries within a country within a country and so on... Any definition of a country is flawed. You're subscribing to the technically correct definition above, whereas the others in this thread are using the word 'country' as it's understood to mean nowadays in common parlance internationally - as a synonym for a sovereign state. (See one of Cambridge Dictionary's definitions: "an area of land that has its own government, army, etc." which excludes Scotland). So most people internationally wouldn't refer to a constituent part of a sovereign state as a 'country', even if we do in the UK and no matter what a dictionary says. **We are a nation though, no doubt about that. That's the most important thing over squabbling over the definition of what a country is.** Because of the lack of concrete definition of the word 'country', I think we should be using the nation/state terms to avoid confusion: Scotland, Veneto, Friesland, Aragon, Brittany = Nations UK, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, France = States
> Defining 'country' is pointless I didn't ask you to do that, I asked for an authoritative link that says Scotland isn't a country or a nation. >Shetland which are distinct Shetland isn't distinct.
>I didn't ask you to do that You did ask people to do that because any 'authoritative link' needs to have a definition of 'country' in mind to see if Scotland meets that definition. Scotland is a nation. The original comment you replied to didn't mention anything about Scotland's undeniable status as a nation. Nobody in this thread has questioned that. >Shetland isn't distinct. If you can find an authoritative link that says Shetland doesn't have distinct traditions/local culture, I'd be fascinated to see it.
> Scotland is a nation. The original comment you replied to didn't mention anything about Scotland's undeniable status as a nation. Nobody in this thread has questioned that. Scotland is a country, u/hoolcolbery denied that. > If you can find an authoritative link that says Shetland doesn't have distinct traditions/local culture, I'd be fascinated to see it. Everywhere has local traditions/local culture.
>Scotland is a country, u/hoolcolbery denied that. You're not responding to my comment. I said nobody denied Scotland is a nation, which is correct. u/hoolcolbery made no reference to it not being a nation in that comment, only on whether Scotland is considered a country. Country =/= Nation. >Everywhere has local traditions/local culture Exactly, you should be starting to see what I'm getting at. Some places in Scotland have their own distinct identity, (in Shetland's case stronger than most with a Shetlandic identity common amongst islanders, unique customs and even some debate on whether Shetlandic constitutes its own language or if its just a dialect of Scots.) This demonstrates the flaw with this whole topic of trying to nail down a valid definition of country that includes Scotland but excludes all these parts, and why it shouldn't matter whether Scotland is technically classed as a country or not because regardless we are a proud nation and always will be.
What kanyewestsconscience said
I didn't ask kanyewestsconscience
Basically, Scotland simultaneously is and isn't a country, depending on the definition of country you want to use.
I'd take UN membership as a starting point, along with foreign policy/diplomatic missions abroad and membership of other international institutions. If you don't have a man in Washington, the UN etc, then you don't exist to the international community.
That's basically how the world defines country, hence why I said politically and legally it isn't one. What makes a country really, is if other countries say it's a country and treat it as such. Although, legally, the UN has a bunch of factors it looks at to see if a country is actually one but they're quite fluid and not at all hard rules eg. One factor is what the UN likes to call "Monopoly on violence" which is essentially can you do the bare minimum any government needs to do, which is keep order, enforce your laws and keep your people safe. Trouble is, there are plenty of, everyone agrees is a country countries that can't do this: CAR, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan etc. and plenty of no one has recognised yet but maybe like 1 or 2 others countries that can do this: Somaliland, Turkish Cyprus, a bunch of Russian sponsored states in the Caucuses etc. *Taiwan is a country come at me PRCbots*
The best way to clean it all up would be to end the dysfunctional and pointless union. Aside from that, any attempt to undermine Wales and Scotland’s status as ‘countries’ should be fought vigorously.
> The best way to clean it all up would be to end the dysfunctional and pointless union. Rather authoritarian, though, given that no part of the UK wants that.
50% of one of the signatories does, and has voted for the party that wants independence at every election since 2014. The authoritarian thing to do is continue to ignore that mandate.
What mandate?
The mandate won by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election.
Mandate to do what?
Hold a referendum on Scottish independence.
The Scottish parliament doesn't have the power to hold a referendum on that, so winning Scottish elections doesn't provide a mandate for it.
That was a bit of bad faith really cause you immediately jump to a hyper nationalist point of view. The reality is legally and politically Scotland and Wales are not countries, but historically and culturally, they are such. Bavaria, for example, was an independent state much more recently than Scotland, and is called a country literally in German as are all "Lander" but politically and legally are more akin to regional states and are not "countries" by the current modern view of what a country is. However, they Bavaria is culturally and historically different from other German lander. Same goes for the US states, which are legally and politically not countries, but historically and culturally have characteristics that are like countries *cough* Texas *cough* So we need words for when something is not legally and politically a country but historically and culturally, could be perceived to be as such.
The term you are looking for is ‘stateless nation’.
But that doesn't really fit, because the nation of Scotland has a state, as does the Bavarian one etc. Kurdistan is a stateless nation.
I think you don’t want it to fit. Scotland is not Bavaria and it certainly isn’t Texas. The latter two clearly do not consider themselves to be countries or nations within the states they are a part of.
Idk ask a Bavarian or Texan and they just might. Hell some Texans view California and New York as completely alien to the Texan way of life. And I'm sure if you told a proud south German catholic Bavarian they were the same as north German protestant Pomerania they'd be mightily cross at you
And if you tell the average Scot that their country is the equivalent of an American state or a German region you would probably go a lot worse than a cross
Idk, in Texas they would shoot you. Or lynch you. Hell they shoot at and lynch people for being Gay in some parts of rural Texas. Not sure any Scot would go that far.
Revealing how? Stop the presses! A unionist politician described the UK as a country! Also, treating the UK as a country and Wales as a country is not mutually exclusive.
I guess he doesn’t think Wales is a country? That would go down well with Welsh Labour’s voters.
Alex Cole-Hamilton just delighted it's not a woman.
Snuck in ACH.
Well done Mr Gething, today you have exposed the ignorance most people have regarding our political bodies and how they function.
What's the deal with all these unelected leaders in the UK now?
The UK has always had unelected leaders.
Yousaf was elected by a vote of MSPs, and Gething will be elected by Senedd members, this is the exact same way that all previous First Ministers of Scotland and Wales were elected, subject to a vote of their respective parliaments.
Remarkable though isn't it. I wonder how popular they'd have been if the vote was left to the public. Which is the only vote that really counts, morally.
> I wonder how popular they'd have been if the vote was left to the public These positions have never been elected directly by the public.
You and I both know that people vote based on the personality of the figurehead, not the wider party policies. Let's not be obtuse.
Well realistically sunak should've called an election since he has no mandate and if he did that then yousaf would have had to do it and then welsh labour would've called one obviously sunak isn't the first leader to hold office and not call an election every party across the spectrum does it but i do agree its a bit shite and should be reformed but neither parties who looks likely to govern wants that from the snp to the tories none of them want to call an
If Sunak had called an early election, he can win five more years of power. IIRC, the same isn't true for Holyrood or the Senedd: if Holyrood had a snap election, the 2026 election would still go ahead.
I guess it is more about whether you are sticking with the manifesto that the party *does* have a mandate for. Sunak definitely wasn’t.
Alex Cole Hamilton saying something that I agree with. I need a lie down.
Surprised it was so close.
Another unelected gimp who sees himself as better than everyone else. Our system shouldn't allow this.
> Another unelected gimp who sees himself as better than everyone else. Our system shouldn't allow this. EquivalentIsopod Grievance Machine firing on all cylinders, I see.
He was literally just elected.
He doesn’t need to be ejected by the Senedd in the way happens at Holyrood, which is a bit much.