|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 3, 2023 9:47:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 4, 2023 5:01:56 GMT
It is good to see that the majority is anti monarchist.
What bothers me about that poll is that the results are being drip fed to us. I took part in the survey. I emailed James Kelly on 13th December saying that another Scottish poll was on the go. The Poll was mainly for the Sunday Times
(Alba & Stuart Campbell were also involved, with questions on Alba and gender).
Three weeks later and the results for voting intentions have not been released. This seemingly is nothing new with the Sunday Times. Indeed, Ballot Box Scotland revealed that it had stopped "formally" covering Sunday Times polls because the info is not released quick enough (twitter 3rd September and repeated 18th December) although, of course, the site mentions the results. We'll probably see how the SNP are doing this Sunday. Interestingly, despite the questions on Alba, the party was not on the list of options for voting intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 4, 2023 8:16:17 GMT
Does King Charles indicate that he would be prepared to be Head of State of a breakaway region of the United Kingdom? Surely it is rather impertinent to merely assume that he might condescend to be King of Scotland, plus would a separated Scotland be able to afford his fees, or would they want him to do it for nothing?
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Jan 4, 2023 8:31:24 GMT
Does King Charles indicate that he would be prepared to be Head of State of a breakaway region of the United Kingdom? Surely it is rather impertinent to merely assume that he might condescend to be King of Scotland, plus would a separated Scotland be able to afford his fees, or would they want him to do it for nothing? As a republican I couldn't give a flying f***. However, the fact is that he is King of Scotland as well as England. It will be very interesting to see if there is to be a coronation ceremony in Edinburgh, with the Scottish regalia, as well as in England. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 4, 2023 9:19:44 GMT
Does King Charles indicate that he would be prepared to be Head of State of a breakaway region of the United Kingdom? Surely it is rather impertinent to merely assume that he might condescend to be King of Scotland, plus would a separated Scotland be able to afford his fees, or would they want him to do it for nothing? As a republican I couldn't give a flying f***. However, the fact is that he is King of Scotland as well as England. It will be very interesting to see if there is to be a coronation ceremony in Edinburgh, with the Scottish regalia, as well as in England. You mean "The Honours of Scotland".... That's their proper title. And I love the Claymore which is part of them.  That is one tidy sword. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 9:29:48 GMT
Does King Charles indicate that he would be prepared to be Head of State of a breakaway region of the United Kingdom? Surely it is rather impertinent to merely assume that he might condescend to be King of Scotland, plus would a separated Scotland be able to afford his fees, or would they want him to do it for nothing? Well look on the dull side. As you do. He will be King of the breakaway bankrupt region of England. End off. The first one. The rest had Empires. Even the break away regions all over the world no longer want him. Are you getting lonely or something |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 9:31:13 GMT
Does King Charles indicate that he would be prepared to be Head of State of a breakaway region of the United Kingdom? Surely it is rather impertinent to merely assume that he might condescend to be King of Scotland, plus would a separated Scotland be able to afford his fees, or would they want him to do it for nothing? He is not the King of Scotland he is the King of England and head of state in Scotland. Your problem being. What's up. Is it not time to rant the Jocks will have to join the Euro. Or some similar drivel |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 9:39:24 GMT
I have met the guy three times. Had my photo with him. . He can take a joke and a wind up. Not short of giving one back. Not to mention he was the Colonel in Chief of my Regiment and turns out at every possible venue. He had the balls to do what the guys did. I have no issue with him. Or Harry or Anne for that matter. The rest a big no.. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 10:45:47 GMT
Does King Charles indicate that he would be prepared to be Head of State of a breakaway region of the United Kingdom? Surely it is rather impertinent to merely assume that he might condescend to be King of Scotland, plus would a separated Scotland be able to afford his fees, or would they want him to do it for nothing? Her is not the King of Scotland he is the King of England and head of state in Scotland. He was proclaimed King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon his accession to the throne and will be crowned as such at his coronation (just as his mother was at hers). Just google footage of the the proclamation ceremonies (the Edinburgh proclamation would obviously be the most apt but any of the 4 should do) if you need proof, although why you would doubt this in the first instance is beyond me tbh as it would be bizarre for him to be king of part of the country rather than the whole country. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 10:54:40 GMT
Her is not the King of Scotland he is the King of England and head of state in Scotland. He was proclaimed King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon his accession to the throne and will be crowned as such at his coronation (just as his mother was at hers). Just google footage of the the proclamation ceremonies (the Edinburgh proclamation would obviously be the most apt but any of the 4 should do) if you need proof, although why you would doubt this in the first instance is beyond me tbh as it would be bizarre for him to be king of part of the country rather than the whole country. Thee is no such a country as the United Kingdom. There is nothing bizarre in that. It is a sovereign state consisting of 4 countries. Of which he is King of England, head of the Church of England and head of State in Scotland. If he was King of Scotland why would the Scots need a head of state., |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 12:10:23 GMT
He was proclaimed King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon his accession to the throne and will be crowned as such at his coronation (just as his mother was at hers). Just google footage of the the proclamation ceremonies (the Edinburgh proclamation would obviously be the most apt but any of the 4 should do) if you need proof, although why you would doubt this in the first instance is beyond me tbh as it would be bizarre for him to be king of part of the country rather than the whole country. Thee is no such a country as the United Kingdom. There is nothing bizarre in that. It is a sovereign state consisting of 4 countries. Of which he is King of England, head of the Church of England and head of State in Scotland. If he was King of Scotland why would the Scots need a head of state., You are strictly correct when you say that there is no such country as the United Kingdom, but not for the reason that I think you mean. There is a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which, for brevity in all but the most formal of situations, is shortened to the “United Kingdom” or the “UK” (or, less frequently and, in my view, less appropriately, to “Britain”). There are no countries within the United Kingdom ( that would be a bizarre situation and completely inconsistent with the Acts of Union) although its territory does contain the territories of at least 2 (arguably 3) defunct countries ie. England and Scotland (and arguably Wales) together with a territory that was once (and probably will soon become again) part of the country of Ireland. Every country has a head of state, usually/always the constitutionally most senior person in that country. In monarchies (such as the United Kingdom) the monarch is also the head of state. In republics (such as U.S.A.) it is the President, and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 12:46:54 GMT
Thee is no such a country as the United Kingdom. There is nothing bizarre in that. It is a sovereign state consisting of 4 countries. Of which he is King of England, head of the Church of England and head of State in Scotland. If he was King of Scotland why would the Scots need a head of state., You are strictly correct when you say that there is no such country as the United Kingdom, but not for the reason that I think you mean. There is a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which, for brevity in all but the most formal of situations, is shortened to the “United Kingdom” or the “UK” (or, less frequently and, in my view, less appropriately, to “Britain”). There are no countries within the United Kingdom ( that would be a bizarre situation and completely inconsistent with the Acts of Union) although its territory does contain the territories of at least 2 (arguably 3) defunct countries ie. England and Scotland (and arguably Wales) together with a territory that was once (and probably will soon become again) part of the country of Ireland. Every country has a head of state, usually/always the constitutionally most senior person in that country. In monarchies (such as the United Kingdom) the monarch is also the head of state. In republics (such as U.S.A.) it is the President, and so on. Well indeed there is no such thing as a country called the United Kingdom. Neither is there a country called Great Britain. There is no such thing as a British law, a British Policeman, British Court, British Prison and so on. Any more than the is a King of Scotland. Well apart from Idi Amin |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 13:18:50 GMT
You are strictly correct when you say that there is no such country as the United Kingdom, but not for the reason that I think you mean. There is a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which, for brevity in all but the most formal of situations, is shortened to the “United Kingdom” or the “UK” (or, less frequently and, in my view, less appropriately, to “Britain”). There are no countries within the United Kingdom ( that would be a bizarre situation and completely inconsistent with the Acts of Union) although its territory does contain the territories of at least 2 (arguably 3) defunct countries ie. England and Scotland (and arguably Wales) together with a territory that was once (and probably will soon become again) part of the country of Ireland. Every country has a head of state, usually/always the constitutionally most senior person in that country. In monarchies (such as the United Kingdom) the monarch is also the head of state. In republics (such as U.S.A.) it is the President, and so on. Well indeed there is no such thing as a country called the United Kingdom. Neither is there a country called Great Britain. There is no such thing as a British law, a British Policeman, British Court, British Prison and so on. Any more than the is a King of Scotland. Well apart from Idi Amin When Northern Ireland re-unites with Ireland then the United Kingdom (which was created in 1801 with the joining together of Great Britain with Ireland) will cease to exist and, presumably, we will revert to the country of Great Britain, which was the situation that existed between 1707 and 1801. As for your point about no British Law etc etc, that is not accurate but even if it were then it wouldn’t signify anything to undermine the status of the UK as a country. Nice point about Idi Amin btw and I take your point that Scotland’s monarchs were Kings/Queens of Scots, not of Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 13:33:19 GMT
Well indeed there is no such thing as a country called the United Kingdom. Neither is there a country called Great Britain. There is no such thing as a British law, a British Policeman, British Court, British Prison and so on. Any more than the is a King of Scotland. Well apart from Idi Amin When Northern Ireland re-unites with Ireland then the United Kingdom (which was created in 1801 with the joining together of Great Britain with Ireland) will cease to exist and, presumably, we will revert to the country of Great Britain, which was the situation that existed between 1707 and 1801. As for your point about no British Law etc etc, that is not accurate but even if it were then it wouldn’t signify anything to undermine the status of the UK as a country. Nice point about Idi Amin btw and I take your point that Scotland’s monarchs were Kings/Queens of Scots, not of Scotland. Well a simple question. If British law is not accurate. Would you point to one. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 13:41:35 GMT
When Northern Ireland re-unites with Ireland then the United Kingdom (which was created in 1801 with the joining together of Great Britain with Ireland) will cease to exist and, presumably, we will revert to the country of Great Britain, which was the situation that existed between 1707 and 1801. As for your point about no British Law etc etc, that is not accurate but even if it were then it wouldn’t signify anything to undermine the status of the UK as a country. Nice point about Idi Amin btw and I take your point that Scotland’s monarchs were Kings/Queens of Scots, not of Scotland. Well a simple question. If British law is not accurate. Would you point to one. I can give you 3 areas off the top of my head ie. Finance, Employment and Constitutional laws. |
|
