4 ms·

The UK government occasionally does give things back on the understanding that they can be returned for a bit when required... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St

The UK government occasionally does give things back on the understanding that they can be returned for a bit when required... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone

tivert 2y ago
I don't really see how that example is "giv[ing] things back." That stone is still the property of the British government and kept continuously on British territory.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  It's Complicated(tm) - Scotland and England are, currently, both part of Britain. Historically, not so much. And they were often far-from-friendly, with wars fought and everything. In a referendum 10 years ago, ~45% of Scottish voters wanted to separate again.
  - arethuza 2y ago
    My own reaction to the most recent Scottish independence referendum was pretty much "Oh well, at least we're still in the EU"...
  - chgs 2y ago
    Scotland and England has been the same country for far longer than say the USA has even existed.
    - skylurk 2y ago
      And Scotland has been crowning Scottish kings with it since before England even existed, if you believe the legends ;)
      - chgs 2y ago
        Including James 6th, who then took over England.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      1707 versus 1776 isn’t what I would describe as “far longer”.
      - chgs 2y ago
        In the context of crowning kings, the union of the crowns was 1603, before the mayflower, before new Amsterdam, even before Jamestown. But even with 1707 you’re talking 30% of the age of the USA again.
        philwelch 2y ago
        Between 1714 and 1807, Britain was also in personal union with Hanover. That didn’t make Britain and Hanover the same country any more than England and Scotland were the same country during the 17th century.
  - rleigh 2y ago
    They are both part of the United Kingdom (which is the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland). Great Britain the name of the island both are located upon. England and Scotland will always be a part of Britain, because that's a geographical area, not a political one.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >England and Scotland will always be a part of Britain Not necessarily: they could dig a big canal across the island along the border.
libraryofbabel 2y ago
The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example. Sure, it’s symbolic, but Scotland is in the UK and so this was really just moving something around within the UK borders.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example The Stone of Scone is a good example of something else, though: if you declare that your king is coronated on a particular stone, when your neighbor conquers you what do you think your neighbor is going to do with the stone? Same thing you would do if you conquered them. Anyway, James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, which merged the claims, and meant that from then on, claims to the Scottish throne and claims to the English throne would be the same thing.

tivert 2y ago

I don't really see how that example is "giv[ing] things back." That stone is still the property of the British government and kept continuously on British territory.

bell-cot 2y ago
It's Complicated(tm) - Scotland and England are, currently, both part of Britain. Historically, not so much. And they were often far-from-friendly, with wars fought and everything. In a referendum 10 years ago, ~45% of Scottish voters wanted to separate again.
- arethuza 2y ago
  My own reaction to the most recent Scottish independence referendum was pretty much "Oh well, at least we're still in the EU"...
- chgs 2y ago
  Scotland and England has been the same country for far longer than say the USA has even existed.
  - skylurk 2y ago
    And Scotland has been crowning Scottish kings with it since before England even existed, if you believe the legends ;)
    - chgs 2y ago
      Including James 6th, who then took over England.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    1707 versus 1776 isn’t what I would describe as “far longer”.
    - chgs 2y ago
      In the context of crowning kings, the union of the crowns was 1603, before the mayflower, before new Amsterdam, even before Jamestown. But even with 1707 you’re talking 30% of the age of the USA again.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        Between 1714 and 1807, Britain was also in personal union with Hanover. That didn’t make Britain and Hanover the same country any more than England and Scotland were the same country during the 17th century.
- rleigh 2y ago
  They are both part of the United Kingdom (which is the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland). Great Britain the name of the island both are located upon. England and Scotland will always be a part of Britain, because that's a geographical area, not a political one.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >England and Scotland will always be a part of Britain Not necessarily: they could dig a big canal across the island along the border.

libraryofbabel 2y ago

The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example. Sure, it’s symbolic, but Scotland is in the UK and so this was really just moving something around within the UK borders.

fsckboy 2y ago
>The Stone of Scone getting returned to Scotland is a bad example The Stone of Scone is a good example of something else, though: if you declare that your king is coronated on a particular stone, when your neighbor conquers you what do you think your neighbor is going to do with the stone? Same thing you would do if you conquered them. Anyway, James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, which merged the claims, and meant that from then on, claims to the Scottish throne and claims to the English throne would be the same thing.