>is it because wales and scotland self-indentify as countries and we want to respect their right to do so ?

Basically.

>what is it that makes something like wales or scotland a country, even though they are part of a larger country the UK, that would not also make something like a US State a country?

Because we kind of had this whole thing about 160 years ago where we decided no state within the US would call itself a country.

The country of United States is a republic. All states eventually agreed to join said republic. Things evolved differently in Europe , as certain "states" or groups refused to join under British rule .

It is just based on the unique histories of those areas and different understandings of those terms. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and the rest of the UK were historically separate countries for many years. The did not join together in the UK at the same time, and at one point, the Republic of Ireland was part of the UK but left in 1922 (after being a part of it for more than 100 years). Scotland of course has recently debated and voted on whether to leave the UK (deciding against it). Although they are still considered countries for many purposes, they also are subject to the government of Great Britain and some of the powers usually held by a country are actually held by the central government, not the governments of those separate countries. The United States initially looked like 13 countries with a loose federation ("state" can sometimes be used to mean a "country"), under the articles of confederation adopted shortly after the revolutionary war. However, the United States later adopted a constitution that gave the federal government stronger authority and took a fair amount of authority from the states that are usually associated with a country. Over time, the federal government grew in size and significance, with state governments losing much of the power they initially held. As such, the US states are now much less like countries and more like provinces of other countries, although they do have possibly more authority than typical political subdivisions.

If you're talking about sports teams, they're basically arbitrary. Many independent countries are split into multiple "national" teams for some sports/competitions, and sometimes multiple independent countries form a combined team. Most sports have some kind of international governing body that decides how this works, though they usually take into account the preferences of local organisations and individuals.

> even though they are part of a larger country the UK, that would not also make something like a US State a country?

The thing is, from the British perspective there is essentially the same issue. The UK is a single "state", but the US is split into multiple "states". Each country/state has its own unique political system with its own terminology, and whenever we try and talk comparatively between countries things can get a little bit confusing and vague. And it's not just the terminology - Wales is a different kind of thing from, say, Michigan, not just in the sense of what we call it, but also in the sense of how it fits into the politics and culture of the country/state of which it is part.

Because the various states of the US never exercised full sovereignty as independent countries. After leaving the UK at the beginning of the American Revolution, they banded together to create the Articles of Confederation that gave significant powers to conduct foreign relations, warfare, and control of ports to the United States. So they only ever operated with limited sovereignty. The central government was weak by design, but had clear powers that an independent country would reserve to themselves.

Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland all have a history as sovereign nations that had full control over their borders and foreign relations. They became part of the United Kingdom over a period of centuries (with all of Ireland belonging to the UK before the counties that now make up the Republic of Ireland successfully rebelled).

At first the countries were not a single entity. The UK developed after long processes, with each of them originally being different countries with the same monarch before the central governments merged. Since 1282 the heir to the English throne has been prince or princess of Wales, but it wasn't until the reign of Henry VIII that Parliament in London could pass laws for Wales.

Scotland was not conquered like Wales was, but instead a series of marriage pacts led to both England and Scotland having the same line of royal succession. The 17th Century is referred to as the Personal Union, as both kept their own laws under the same monarch. At the beginning of the 18th Century they formed a Constitutional Union as the United Kingdom, with Scotland now sending representatives to Parliament in London.

Around 1800 the British Isles were united under the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales) and Ireland. The government was fully centralized at that point. This was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922.

Recently, the United Kingdom has restored some home rule with separate Parliaments in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland operating much as US state governments do. England still does not have a Parliament separate from the UK, although MPs from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales do not vote on matters that only effect England.

[deleted]

[removed]

It has to do with this difference in history:

US states: They were someone else's colonies right up until the point they were collected together into a group called the United States and only then did they stop being colonies and start self-governing.

UK internal pieces: Had a history of having been independent countries already, prior to being collected together into a group called the United Kingdom. That historical difference - that they were once self-contained countries while the US states never had such a period of history - causes the difference.

The formation of the UK was "Here's some independent countries that border each other and compete for space on this island so they have wars against each other. Instead of warring all the time maybe they can just agree to share this island by joining into one nation." (Yes, I know Northern Ireland is on a different island, but that got added to the UK later.)

"Because the various states of the US never exercised full sovereignty as independent countries."

There can be little doubt that Texas and Hawaii are clear exceptions to this. Should they get independent World Cup teams from the USA?

Hawaii, yes.

Texas, no. It was only recognized by a handful of countries (the United States was not one of them) and Mexico stopped fighting but did not give up their claim to the territory until after the US-Mexican War. Same with California and Oregon.

They gave up that sovereignty when they joined the Union as States.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as it has been known since 1922 has a complex history. It's not technically a country but a nation state.

It's composed of two countries, Scotland and England. They were joined under the act of the Union of 1707 signed by both parliaments.

Wales was often referred to as a principality as it was incorporated into England way back in 1301. England and Wales make up the original United Kingdom.

So Wales joined the 1707 Union under the authority of England, although it retained Welsh culture and language and in recent years, especially it has come to be recognised as a country, perhaps more so since 2011 when it's got it's own devolved government

Northern Ireland is region, though it has its own devolved assembly. It's the bit Britain kept hold of following Irish independence in 1922.

After a nearly three century hiatus the Scottish parliament reconvened in 1999 following devolution.

I'm talking a lot about devolution that's basically how it sounds. Unions evolved in different ways at different times and then devolved back again.

England doesn't have its own parliament. Why? There's no need for one as it makes up around 83% of the UK parliament. Perhaps one day it will.

America celebrates it's independence day July the 4th each year. In 1776. The United States of America emerged from british colonies. They've never been countries as far as I know but I may be wrong about that.

TL:DR Being a country isn't a matter of self identification, but perhaps you may identify more strongly as being a citizen of a particular state over being an American. If enough people felt that way perhaps an American state can become independent and be a country but it's likely to be a long and difficult road because power is never given up lightly and you've not had the historical precedent.

Vermont as well was in theory its own country, but it wasn't recognized as a country by anyone and generally intended to join the US anyways (which it later did).

damn sounds like that one thing about 160 years ago would cause quite a bit of political turmoil, i hope all of this was peacefully resolved in the senate and not in the deadliest conflict in the country's history

It's mostly a matter of preference. While the word 'country' is often used interchangeably with 'sovereign state', it's not like the word is reserved only for that use. In the UK, country is just the word that they use for the major administrative divisions, similar to states, provinces, prefectures, and the like.

It is true that that preference reflects the historical status of those regions as independent kingdoms, but that is not something that is unique to the UK (Hawaii, Bavaria, Sicily, Saxony, etc)

It isn't really true to say that Ireland or Wales were what we would consider sovereign countries by modern standards before English rule/colonisation.

Ireland had a vast number of minor and major kingdoms with perhaps only Brian Boru being close to a true ruler over all Ireland, and that for less than 20 years in the early 11th century.

Similarly Wales have various kingdoms and only Gruffydd ap Llywelyn ruled a united Wales, again for a short period of time (less than 10 years) in the 11th century.

What both countries did have was a strong cultural identity across their various kingdoms, especially in contrast to the Anglo-Saxon and Norman ruled majority in England.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Discussion of religious or political beliefs are not allowed on ELI5. These usually end up being discussions rather than requests for simplifying complex concepts. They also tend to have a large subjective bent.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Texas is no longer an exception. The SCOTUS resolved this in the wake of the Civil War.

Hawaii also isn't an exception, but culturally is probably the most distinct from the rest of the US (alongside Alaska).

About that...

A fair point. I did oversimplify.