Scotland is the UK. Scotland's airspace is managed by the UK central government. This is like saying "flying over Maine, rather than over the more typical USA, is suggestive of subsurface politics".
It's still a country, albeit one in increasingly reluctant political union with England. It would be rare for a Scot to refer to something as happening in the UK rather than specifically Scotland.
The legal system is independent and different to England and Wales for instance.
The nearest US equivalent would I guess be Puerto Rico rather than Maine.
I don't want to go far into the rabbit hole here but are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states?
I understand how they feel about themselves, or more specifically how roughly half of them feel, however, it's not how the world sees them, generally speaking. Chinese understand "the UK" Scotland, as an international political entity will get you sideways looks.
Foreign affairs and defence are UK wide so UN, NATO, EU etc are all UK representations. The UK is the international entity.
Scottish education, healthcare, and the legislature are independent, sometimes markedly so. Since the referendum they've gained somewhat limited control over taxation.
Even Scots who support the Union tend to see themselves as Scots rather than Brits. Meanwhile most English would rarely call themselves English, preferring British. :)
You're not going to find one magic rule that defines "a country". And I would particularly caution you against using "Does China think you are a country in your own right?" as the measuring stick - they have quite notable differences in this area when compared to others.
With a couple of exceptions, it's fairly straightforward. Is it recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN, does it issue passports, does it control import and export of goods, does it enter into international treaties?
Yes, I know we have people in Arizona who claim to be sovereign and people in places like Texas who want to become their own nation. Thing is, it's only in their view, no external authority recognizes that.
You are assuming "country" and "sovereign state" are synonyms, but that isn't true in general. The word "country" is used to refer to the four first-level subdivisions of the UK - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - this is standard and well-established English usage (well, certainly standard British English). The concept of a sovereign state having subdivisions known as "countries" is not unique to the UK, as the following article attests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country
Scotland in particular is one of those exceptions.
There really is no one magic rule that says 'country vs no country' - even what you offered up is a collection of rules, where some rules catch edge cases that other rules don't.
I'm thinking more exceptions where military might and economic might are immediate threats whereas that's not the case most people would concede about Scotland.
> are they represented in the UN or any other kind of international bodies constituted of member states?
FIFA, UEFA, World Rugby.
Regardless of the comparison with Alaska being flawed, I wouldn't see anything peculiar in an Alaskan newspaper referring to a Russian plane over Alaskan airspace, so I don't see an issue with Scottish people or entities referring to their country as Scotland.
Alaska and Maine have different legal systems too. Scotland is culturally considered a country, sure, but I'm curious whether that has any concrete meaning.
"country" in the UK has a meaning not entirely dissimilar to "state" in the US (in both cases, this is somewhat distinct from the usual use of the term internationally.)
Sure, what I meant to say was really "there is no concrete meaning to them being 'countries' as opposed to 'states' or 'autonomous/semi-sovereign provinces'".
The newspaper is implicitly arguing that if Scotland becomes independent enough to have their own air authority, they would be able to prevent those. “Look what is happening in your name that you disagree with.”
Yes but it's a political subdivision of the U.K. if the plane flew over one of the Swiss cantons, we don't mention the canton, we mention the main superdivisional entity, typically. It sounds peculiar. It's not wrong, but it's non standard.
Airspace is the dominion of the central government, not the political subdivisions, just like territorial waters.
To add: "flying over" is descriptive, "airspace" is a geopolitical term, in this context. Hence the question. But now I understand it's a pro indep publication.
