Uk...

[Mr JP Fugley]

[
Something being fundamentally wrong is not semantics. The Welsh assembly is not a Parliament and has no powers to legislate or raise taxes.

It is ruled by the UK Parliament, so is England. It is ruled over by the monarch of the UK, so is England. There is no fundamental difference between England and Wales, in fact that is what you are called, England and Wales as per the Act of Union. So if you wish to argue that Wales is a principality within the UK then you must also accept that England is the same. By your own words they are merged. Unless you can show me something to the contrary.

Indeed that would mean Scotland, by having it's own Parliament with devolved powers, in addition to electing MPs to rule over England and Wales is the only truly separate Country within the UK.

Works for me.

It was semantics in that it was a slip of the tongue not intended to raise the points you mention.

Wales is most definitely defined as a principality by the looks of things, but the question remains, is it a country as well? I would suggest that because Wales was absorbed by England and all of its infrastructure (as it was) was subject to the laws of England when that happened, that it has never been a separate country. England may have absorbed Wales, but none of its laws or behaviours changed when it did so.....Wales's however did.

Subsequently, both England and Wales became part of the UK and both became subject to UK law.....so it would be reasonable to say I guess, that at that time Wales became a principality of the UK rather than England.

You can't just change what the word semantics means just because you made a mistake. Please don't say "you know what I meant" you're better than that.

The rest of your post is quite frankly specious.

I particularly like the bit where you say "... both England and Wales became part of the UK and both became subject to UK law..." which kind of defeats your own argument as it effectively says that they were separate entities. Countries if you will.

You then go on to say "...so it would be reasonable to say I guess, that at that time Wales became a principality of the UK rather than England", which begs the question, how is England different.

Pretty much a précis of my previous.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Mmmm, a point was made on another board recently that I hadn't considered. Scotland only has a set amount of money in the pot. If they want to create a more generous NHS or have free University education then something somewhere will have to give. It's a case of shuttling the money around where you think it's needed most. So, something somewhere else will have to suffer for it.

The same could be said of the UK as a whole.

[Squeamous]

You can't just change what the word semantics means just because you made a mistake.

The rest of your post is quite frankly specious.

I particularly like the bit where you say "... both England and Wales became part of the UK and both became subject to UK law..." which kind of defeats your own argument as it effectively says that they were separate entities. Countries if you will.

You then go on to say "...so it would be reasonable to say I guess, that at that time Wales became a principality of the UK rather than England", which begs the question, how is England different.

Pretty much a précis of my last.

I'm willing to accept I made a mistake....I used the term 'parliament' when I really meant 'assembly'. This wasn't to illustrate a point, it was a slip of the tongue.....happens all the time.

I thought I'd explained how England was different.....it was probably the bit you called specious.

Of course Wales and England became part of the UK together.....and they are separate entities, albeit in my opinion not 'equal ones'. That's why I refer to one as a country and the other as a principality.

[Mr. Mulder]

i like living in the uk as all my stuff is here.

[Squeamous]

The same could be said of the UK as a whole.

Any geographical entity with a system of taxation and redistribution of income, in fact.

[Mr. Mulder]

i went to another country last week for a few days and took some of my stuff with me but it was hardly the same

[Squeamous]

That's nice Mr Mulder......you're not blonde are you?

[Mr JP Fugley]

You can't just change what the word semantics means just because you made a mistake.

The rest of your post is quite frankly specious.

I particularly like the bit where you say "... both England and Wales became part of the UK and both became subject to UK law..." which kind of defeats your own argument as it effectively says that they were separate entities. Countries if you will.

You then go on to say "...so it would be reasonable to say I guess, that at that time Wales became a principality of the UK rather than England", which begs the question, how is England different.

Pretty much a précis of my last.

I'm willing to accept I made a mistake....I used the term 'parliament' when I really meant 'assembly'. This wasn't to illustrate a point, it was a slip of the tongue.....happens all the time.

I thought I'd explained how England was different.....it was probably the bit you called specious.

Of course Wales and England became part of the UK together.....and they are separate entities, albeit in my opinion not 'equal ones'. That's why I refer to one as a country and the other as a principality.

On what do you base this differentiation.

You really need to think this thro'

You have them merged, you have one absorbed by the other, you have them joining the UK as one, you have them joining the UK separately, you have Wales as a principality of England, you have Wales as a principality of the UK, you have England as a country and Wales as a principality.

Your argument really seems to be all over the place.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The same could be said of the UK as a whole.

Any geographical entity with a system of taxation and redistribution of income, in fact.

That's just a collection of words old bean.

[Squeamous]

On what do you base this differentiation.

You really need to think this thro'

You have them merged, you have one absorbed by the other, you have them joining the UK as one, you have them joining the UK separately, you have Wales as a principality of England, you have Wales as a principality of the UK, you have England as a country and Wales as a principality.

Your argument really seems to be all over the place.

It's not all over the place....this is a complex argument and a complex issue, hence there will be a lot of seemingly contradictory terms coming up which in fact marry together in a very subtle but coherent way. I told you what I based this differentiation on...the bit you dismissed as specious. As such, there hardly seems any point me repeating it........if I do it will only confuse you even more .