Verify the identity of developers

Posted Apr 10, 2024 11:23 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Verify the identity of developers by paulj
Parent article: A backdoor in xz

> Scotland and Wales got their own devolution in 1999, both more proscribed than the original Irish Free State (which had taken armed insurrection), but each with continued representation via MPs in Westminster. I'm not sure about the differences in power between them. The Scottish parliament seems to me to have more "status" and power than the Welsh one, but that might just be my bias, having lived in Scotland - I don't know much about Welsh devolution and how it compares.

Being interested in history, I think this goes back to the fact that England and Scotland were two separate nations (let's forget the Flower of Scotland Proud Edward's Army bit) until very recently. Until William's intervention in 1066, the assorted British nations were steadily coalescing of their own accord, take for example the agreement round about 900AD between - iirc - Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex that all three crowns would pass to whichever King survived longest.

Then William arrived and upset the applecart, setting out to unite the British Isles by force. Out of proto-England, Wales held out the longest which forged a separate nationality (quite possibly helped by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon nations fell rather more easily, the Welsh being Celtic so already feeling different). But Wales has always been part of "England" since the mid 1100s (and sort-of took over the English crown with Owain Tudor about 1500).

Scotland has always had a separate identity - again being Gaelic rather than Anglo-Saxon (although the Sassenachs are "Lowland Scots" aka Angles"). Again fuelled by constant conflict with the Normans to the south. And with their own monarchy (which Wales never had?) since pre-William - again going back to 900s and earlier - which left alone would probably have merged with England using a similar mechanism. But it wasn't to be.

So Scotland was either occupied, or completely independent, until the "Union of the Crowns" in 1603. It remained an independent (theoretically) country until about 1750 and the "Act of Union".

So basically, Scotland has more power and independence because Scotland is considered a nation/country. Wales is just a subordinate principality.

(And personally, I think Westminster has far too much power. A lot of it should be devolved to local government. But it's the standard ebb and flow of politics unfortunately - the centre grabs power, messes it up, and the regions grab it back. Rinse and repeat :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Verify the identity of developers

Posted Apr 10, 2024 12:59 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (3 responses)

Interesting... ;)

As an aside, I note your view of the history seems skewed towards the countries /currently/ part of the UK. You can't understand the history of these Celtic Isles without understanding the history of one of the larger chunks of it, and a kingdom of the king of England for longer than Scotland - Ireland. Some of the biggest battles relevant to the history of the kingdom of England (and to the history of Europe, to a certain extent) were fought in... Ireland (by soldiers from many nations).

Just saying, cause a lot of modern British seem to overlook it - just cause Ireland is no longer part of the UK.

Verify the identity of developers

Posted Apr 10, 2024 15:04 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Agreed I don't know an awful lot about Ireland. Bear in mind I consider myself European/Scottish although my wife insists I'm English, so that accounts for at least some of the bias.

I also know there's an awful lot of history roundabout the time of Cromwell and Cromwell :- ) that's Thomas Cromwell of Henry VIII fame for the first one :-) but I know very little about it, other than it was the age-old Catholic/Protestant mess. (And quite likely earlier, too.)

The other thing that often gets forgotten about medieval history is the "Joan of Arc vs the English" lie. Okay, Joan is a bit later than this, but King John (of Magna Carta fame, 1215) is probably the first true "King of England". Before that, and including his elder brother Richard, the title of Duke of Normandy actually ranked ABOVE the King of England. Richard's troubles in the Crusades basically brought about the downfall of the Norman Empire, and Joan drove the Normans out of Normandy (probably a gross mis-representation of what actually happened, but rather more accurate than folk history!)

Cheers,
Wol

Verify the identity of developers

Posted Apr 11, 2024 9:12 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

King John possibly succeeded - despite himself - in part thanks to having Ireland to draw wealth from. Without Ireland, he'd have had nothing early on ("John Lackland" - John no-land), and would have been less wealthy later. He might have struggled to hold the English crown against his nephew Arthur and Philip II of France.

Verify the identity of developers

Posted Apr 10, 2024 15:19 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Just to throw in another snippet, to help explain the Saxon / William thing - Saxon kings were elected. William's pretence for invasion was that he had been promised the crown, which was half true, but it was never in the gift of the promissors.

And that's how the treaty between the three kings worked - the ruling councils basically signed up that the only eligible candidates for any vacant monarchy would be the other monarchs. All helped by the fact that the crowns did NOT pass father to son, although the only real candidates were all close relatives of the late King.

Indeed, George II may have been the first King to inherit as of legal right, given the shenanigans in the aftermath of Henry VIII and Edward VI, and the similar shenanigans over James II, William and Mary, and Anne. Indeed, after the death of his wife, William III ruled alone despite not being of (British) Royal Blood at all! Using him as precedent, we should have had King Albert, and King Philip! (Although of course, Philip was of British Royal Blood, as also reputedly is Camilla.)

Cheers,
Wol