The BBC are off to Salford

[MrGongGong]

I
In view of the fact that London represents economically a substantial part of the UK, I rather think it is representative.

many capital cities are like national anthems .......... they are often (with a few notable exceptions such as India's ) not at all like the country they are apparently representing (which is one reason why Hymnen is not such a successful piece IMV). Economic and cultural significance are not necessarily the same. I don't live in Scotland but the idea that one gets a "National" viewpoint of the UK from London is laughable.

(just listening to the today programme on radio 4 and heard how terrible the weather was everywhere , looking out of the window at the clear blue sky and sunshine , think i'll go to our allotment and pick some more plums but will need some sunblock and a hat ! )

[scottycelt]

Just in case anybody wonders, yes I have visited Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh and found them, well, provincial is the word.

But Edinburgh is a capital city! It also happens to boast the greatest international arts festival in the world. The fact that it is very much smaller than London does not make it in any way 'provincial'.

Both Manchester and Glasgow have very much to offer as I lived long periods in both vibrant cities, where there are two resident orchestras and many fine venues, galleries, theatres etc. Glasgow had its underground rail system in operation long before most capital cities around the world!

London is really an 'international' city like New York and, although that distinctive atmosphere can be truly invigorating for the visitor, for some of those who have to work and live there it might not be quite so attractive.

It all depends on the viewpoint and personality (and possibly, I suspect, age) of the person concerned.

[Curalach]

There was also a Tudor at Giffnock?

Yes, now a supermarket!

[Pabmusic]

But Edinburgh is a capital city!

Here's part of the problem. We live in the UK that comprises four "countries" (our own term), but which in fact is only 'one' country according to the UN, and international relations generally. There's only one capital city - in the sense that Paris or Washington are capitals - with all the international connexions that implies. Sentiment aside, Edinburgh is as much (and no less) a 'capital city' as Albany is the capital of New York state. I love Edinburgh (its probably my favourite city), but it is not an international city in the way that London is. London's problem is that the international dimension constantly obscures the national one.

[MrGongGong]

Here's part of the problem. We live in the UK that comprises four "countries" (our own term), but which in fact is only 'one' country according to the UN, and international relations generally. There's only one capital city - in the sense that Paris or Washington are capitals - with all the international connexions that implies. Sentiment aside, Edinburgh is as much (and no less) a 'capital city' as Albany is the capital of New York state. I love Edinburgh (its probably my favourite city), but it is not an international city in the way that London is. London's problem is that the international dimension constantly obscures the national one.

Ahhhh

So Scotland is a "state" and not a country then ?

(i'd hide behind the sofa if I were you )

[Flosshilde]

Here's part of the problem. We live in the UK that comprises four "countries" (our own term),

?

but which in fact is only 'one' country according to the UN, and international relations generally.

I would consider that the UK is a state (not in the USA sense) made up of four countries (using the normal definition)

There's only one capital city - in the sense that Paris or Washington are capitals

What sense is that?

with all the international connexions that implies.

I think you'll find that Edinburgh has considerable international connections, & always has had.

[Ventilhorn]

What a splendid Sunday morning wind-up! It's about time that people were told the truth about the desert that is the North-West: no art galleries, no orchestras, no decent scenery, no airports, no decent soccer teams...

Yes, it was a wind-up; to wind up the sadly declining number of message board contributions and provoke a lively discussion; but I did include an important message, which was intended to "put the wind up" those who are complacent enough to think that there will still be 5 (6 if you include the part-funded Ulster) BBC orchestras in 3 or 4 years' time.

All music lovers must make their feelings quite clear on this possibility now and not wait until it is a 'fait accompli'.

Supporters of the locally sponsored "provincial" symphony orchestras and opera companies should also be aware that they are going to have a fight on their hands to keep that which they value.

VH

[Pabmusic]

Of course Scotland is not a 'state' in the sense that New York is - we don't have 'states'.* I was making an analogy rather than a direct comparison. Of course Edinburgh is the historic capital of the Kingdom of Scotland. Of course Scotland has a proud tradition having been an independent state (in the national sense). Of course it now has a devolved government within a conjoined 'state'.

But it is currently part of only one institution recognised as an independent state by the UN (and by other countries separately) - the United Kingdom. The UN does not recognise Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland as independent states, which is why I say that the use of 'country' in these cases is our own.

Most of the principal institutions of international relations are centred on, or have major links to, London. This is hardly surprising, after all, since London is the seat of the UK government. That is all I was saying.

I do not intend to hide anywhere, let alone behind a sofa.


*New York was, in colonial days, independent of the other US states, and the city was the first capital of the USA - but that's hardly to the point.

[Norfolk Born]

At least people moving from Maidenhead to Salford will get away from Man Utd supporters.

[scottycelt]

Here's part of the problem. We live in the UK that comprises four "countries" (our own term), but which in fact is only 'one' country according to the UN, and international relations generally. There's only one capital city - in the sense that Paris or Washington are capitals - with all the international connexions that implies. Sentiment aside, Edinburgh is as much (and no less) a 'capital city' as Albany is the capital of New York state. I love Edinburgh (its probably my favourite city), but it is not an international city in the way that London is. London's problem is that the international dimension constantly obscures the national one.

Yes, but we are not talking solely about huge 'international' cities but 'capitals'. With it's Parliament now restored Edinburgh is very much a capital city and, of course, is world-renowned for its role in having being the seat of the Scottish Enlightenment which had significant influence in shaping the modern western world. Even today it's the foremost financial centre in the UK, outside London.

Edinburgh may be many things like 'east windy and west endy' (brilliant, RLS!) but it's very much a capital city and, more importantly, has now regained all the 'air' of one!

However, like you, it's also my favourite city in the UK (at least visually), so maybe I'm just biased!

[Anna]

Supporters of the locally sponsored "provincial" symphony orchestras and opera companies should also be aware that they are going to have a fight on their hands to keep that which they value.

I really don't understand that point. Why should the BBC moving to Salford have that effect? Why should the Welsh National Orchestra and WN Opera be under threat for example?

[Al R Gando]

Supporters of the locally sponsored "provincial" symphony orchestras and opera companies should also be aware that they are going to have a fight on their hands to keep that which they value.

VH

A fight which mysteriously doesn't happen in countries which place a higher value on culture. Germany's other opera houses (it would be unfair to call them "provincial") perform to the highest standards. So do those in Italy. Denmark has excellent opera houses beyond Copenhagen, who attract international soloists. Why is it that Britain tolerates the indifference with which the Arts are funded outside London. What's happened at Scottish Opera (where the orchestra were encouraged to get part-time jobs in supermarkets) would be frontpage news in Germany - in the UK it's on p94, with cackling conservatives pouring the petrol on the blaze.

[aeolium]

A fight which mysteriously doesn't happen in countries which place a higher value on culture.

It does, actually. There was a bitter struggle a few years back between Berlin's opera companies and the municipal authority there about funding and there was a threat that one of the companies would be closed. That didn't happen, but the threat remains, particularly in the even worse financial conditions that prevail now. Berlusconi has threatened to implement severe cuts to the arts budget in Italy. The Dutch government has also proposed major cuts (the subject of another thread here a while back). The fact is that the arts are always going to be seen as an easy target in times of recession. Do you think that arts organisations in severely indebted countries in the eurozone are going to be immune from the threat of cutbacks?

[Al R Gando]

It does, actually. There was a bitter struggle a few years back between Berlin's opera companies and the municipal authority there about funding and there was a threat that one of the companies would be closed.

A fair point, but since Berlin is the capital, policy on funding in other cities isn't determined by policy in Berlin. A great number of Germany's cities, in both former West and former East, have fully-fledged opera houses staging high-quality work. None of them - as far as I know - have asked their orchestras to stack dogfood to make ends meet.

[Flosshilde]

But it is currently part of only one institution recognised as an independent state by the UN (and by other countries separately) - the United Kingdom. The UN does not recognise Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland as independent states, which is why I say that the use of 'country' in these cases is our own.

The definition of what is a 'State' and what is a 'country' is rather vague. The first definition here would suggest that Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are indisputably countries (not sure about England )

While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference.
A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country.

A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State.

http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm

Under the Montivideo Convention Scotland could almost be considered a State.
and also on http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...efinition.html