Nation states do not have a right to privacy. Robbing a bank is not equivalent to acquiring state secrets (especially those involving illegal activity). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Why do people say ‘nation states’ when they mean countries? Neither the UK nor the US are ‘nation states’. They’re both examples I would give of things that are not nation states in fact.

Because it sounds cooler and makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.

Sorry, it was simply because my "country" is actually a nation state composed of various countries and that's what I've been used to saying. No other reason I'm afraid. In fact, the correct term which I should have used is "sovereign states". So no, I don't think it's cooler and, matter of fact, I wouldn't say I fully understand international law enough to say "I know what I'm talking about" when it comes to what a nation state or a sovereign state is, what the difference is, or such nuances. But if I'm pressed, I can probably speak at length on why my first comment, in its entirety, is a perfectly reasonable conclusion we can all arrive at, regardless of the type of politics of said state (democratic or not).

I don't think that the phrase "sovereign states don't have rights" is even controversial at all. I also think think that any adult that has gone through any decent education will probably be familiar with the phrase or concept, even if they can't ELI5 it, the same way we are familiar with or have heard of other related concepts like democracy, separation of powers, habeas corpus, human rights, individual rights, sovereignty, etc. In fact, sovereignty is perhaps where the debate should live because sovereignty is, after all, the right of a "state" over itself, which seems to contradict the idea that sovereign states have no rights (it doesn't). Anyway, enough of that.

My first comment was short because it was simply intended as a nudge or reminder that hey, before we go down the road of overthinking why the USA has a right to hold some secrets, let's just remember that the idea itself is difficult to defend, especially in a democracy.

Because Scotland is a country, and its part of the UK

Doesn’t this just emphasise that the UK is not a nation state?

‘Country’ is an informal term. ‘Nation state’ is weirdly specific and doesn’t even apply!

Yeh I agree there's nothing about the term nation state that applies...all the more if Scotland has a separate heritage & tradition. I think the problem is less about pretentiousness though. A "nation" isn't necessarily something with a border or a language...it's a tradition of governance within a special kind of community. But at the same time, what we call a nation in the "global power" sense is also different. At no point previously in human history would we think of one State as having the ability to unilaterally control different aspects of other States like the European powers did when they conquered the world. And I'd say the current structure of the international money systems which allows the U.S. treasury to freeze foreign bank accounts is not typical of a mere "State" I'd say there should be another world entirely.

> Doesn’t this just emphasise that the UK is not a nation state?

I should've said sovereign state. Let's not get caught up in semantics.

>Doesn’t this just emphasise that the UK is not a nation state?

What would you use to refer to UK then? Because if Scotland is a country, and Scotland is a part of UK, that feels kinda weird to call an entity composed of multiple countries a country.

Well certainly not 'nation state' of all things. The UK literally has 'the Nations'. And the US literally has the 'Native Nations'. By their own description and common sense they aren't nation states.

Does the 'United...' part of their names not give it away?

Call them 'sovereign states' if you want to mean something independent on a global scale.

A group of united nation-states of the British isles.