Am I talking bollocks?
- I’m talking bollocks
- A serious and thought proking analogy.
Can a state move house? And what does it mean if it does? Is it true that “the ‘king’ and the land are one”?
This is about the relationship between nations, states, governments and territories.
If the UK decided become a republic (the United Republic of GB and NI?), and told the Queen that she no longer held sovereignty as our head of state, what would become of those bits of the commonwealth that still have her as their head of state? Presumably they get to make their own choice rather than be dictated to by the British people’s decision.
She is the Queen of Canada (for example), in its own right, not as the head of a “British Empire”, or even “British Commonwealth”, neither of which exist. In a sense, she almost just so happens to be based in the UK, rather than being primarily the British head of state.
So presumably, if they’d have her, she could take her dynasty to Canada or somewhere else and continue to be sovereign there. Canada would in no way become Britain, or British just because our former head of state had moved there, just as the English are not German, Dutch, Scottish or anything else (because of kings we’ve accepted from these places). Over time she or her descendents would become Canadianised. See where I’m going?
The ROC government is a little like a dynasty that was chucked out of the country over which it had sovereignty and found a new home in a place that they were administering at that time. Over time, that dynasty has “gone native”.
Actually, the major weakness in my analogy is that whilst Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign head of state of Canada, the ROC government was not the sovereign government of Taiwan at the time it came here, rather it was administering Taiwan pending settlement, which never came.
Obviously, to a certain extent I’m talking bollocks. But so much of the whole debate is bollocks with both sides trying to use “theories” (in a loose interpretation of the word) or historical evidence to assert their claims when all that really matters is the question should Taiwan today be integrated with of China or go its own way. Many of us would say that all that matters is what the people who live on this island want, though some on the other side would disagree.
Any thoughts on my (not so serious) analogy?