Nany of us regard the uk as a political farce long past its sell by date, that's what's wrong.
So, you're arguing the detail, again, not the principle.
To be givven a 'british' honour would be an insult.
Given that you, like the Welsh, English and Northern Irish remain part of the union at present, why would be being "givven a 'british' honour " be an insult? Over the past few years, plenty of Scots folk have been happy to accept such an honour, suggesting that the feeling of insult isn't as widespread as you would have us believe.
To be given an honour on behallf of a nation, rather than a bankrupt moribund political union, would be a compliment.
I'm not convinced that the 'bankrupt moribund political union' isn't benefitting Scotland more than it is the Welsh or N. Irish - or even the English.
Most charities are sensible enough to have devolved offices in the various nations which constitute the 'uk', anyway, so what's the problem, Hope?
Partly because, especially in Scotland, there is a different legislative scene that requires them to do so; partly because it allows them to react to Welsh/Scottish/N.Irish/English circumstances quicker than otherwise; partly because they are big enough to do so. Let's take the hypothetical example of a charity supporting minority ethnic female students that was started in Leeds 3 years ago, has 5 or 6 'branches' in other universitty towns in England and has attracted interest both north and west of the English borders, to the extent that it is in loose partnership with three sister charities, one in Aberystwyth, one in Stirling and one in St Andrews; so if someone was to get a specifically Welsh honour, is it likely to benefit the UK-wide group as much as a UK honour?
