|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 14:25:31 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. There has never ever in history been a country called britian , great britian or the united kingdom.
In 1603 , when jamie baggybreaks became king james the first of englandshire , and remained james saxth of scotland , he was one man with two crowns upon his head. He tried to unite the two kingdoms parliaments , but they refused.
So from 1603 , what we had was the kingdom of great britian and ireland ,( scotland Ireland and wales/england) ie three seperate states (wales being legally part of england under henry 8ths laws regarding union in the 16th century) governed as one kingdom with three parliaments .They were not classed as a single country , but the clue is in the name ......"kingdom".
Further ,scottish schoolchildren are taught from primary school the uk doesnt have a single british legal system. It has three seperate legal systems , with differences in law , espceially common and criminal law , between scotland and england.
The uk as i repeatedly mention is described by the uk government past and present as a multi national state , made up of two countries a principality and a province.
The uk as i understand it is the only state in western europe that doesnt even issue simple markers of nationhood like births certificates..........the scottish and english/welsh having different birth certificates and so on.
You try buying a house in scotland mate under this so called mythical british (english) law and see how you get on .
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 14:31:49 GMT
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. please do. You seem to be conflating legislation passed by either westmisnter or holyrood , passed into the laws of scotland and england.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 15:31:41 GMT
I can give you 3 areas off the top of my head ie. Finance, Employment and Constitutional laws. please do. You seem to be conflating legislation passed by either westmisnter or holyrood , passed into the laws of scotland and england.
I have already done so. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 16:01:07 GMT
please do. You seem to be conflating legislation passed by either westmisnter or holyrood , passed into the laws of scotland and england.
I have already done so.
finance?
The uk as far as im aware is the only "state" in europe without a single legal system .
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 16:58:12 GMT
please do. You seem to be conflating legislation passed by either westmisnter or holyrood , passed into the laws of scotland and england.
I have already done so. No you have not. You made a general statement. A wee clue. Statutory instruments. And the days of the old Scottish Office |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 17:00:25 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. There has never ever in history been a country called britian , great britian or the united kingdom.
In 1603 , when jamie baggybreaks became king james the first of englandshire , and remained james saxth of scotland , he was one man with two crowns upon his head. He tried to unite the two kingdoms parliaments , but they refused.
So from 1603 , what we had was the kingdom of great britian and ireland ,( scotland Ireland and wales/england) ie three seperate states (wales being legally part of england under henry 8ths laws regarding union in the 16th century) governed as one kingdom with three parliaments .They were not classed as a single country , but the clue is in the name ......"kingdom".
Further ,scottish schoolchildren are taught from primary school the uk doesnt have a single british legal system. It has three seperate legal systems , with differences in law , espceially common and criminal law , between scotland and england.
The uk as i repeatedly mention is described by the uk government past and present as a multi national state , made up of two countries a principality and a province.
The uk as i understand it is the only state in western europe that doesnt even issue simple markers of nationhood like births certificates..........the scottish and english/welsh having different birth certificates and so on.
You try buying a house in scotland mate under this so called mythical british (english) law and see how you get on .
Thomas,
I am assuming that you are not being unduly pedantic here and claiming that there has never been a country called Great Britain simply because the full title of the country that existed between 1707 and 1801 was the Kingdom of Great Britain, or that there has never been a country called United Kingdom for much the same reason per my earlier post above, otherwise the same argument would apply to many/ most countries across the globe eg. the People’s Republic of China, the Royal Kingdom of Thailand, the Kingdom of Denmark etc etc. So, assuming that is not the basis of your argument then you have simply got this wrong, mate.The Acts of Union 1707 resulted in the winding up of the countries of England (incorporating Wales) and Scotland and the creation of the country of Great Britain later that same year. That newly created country of Great Britain existed until the end of 1800 when the Act of Union of 1800 was enacted, winding up the countries of Great Britain and Ireland and creating the new country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which was later to become the country named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (generally just referred to as the United Kingdom or UK for brevity, in much the same way that, for example, the United States of America is generally shortened to the United States, USA, or even, rather untidily to my mind, to America, without causing too much confusion, distress or debate).
The countries of England (incorporating Wales), Scotland and Ireland all remained separate countries following the “Union of the Crowns” in 1603, despite the wishes of James I/VI to bring them into alignment and despite some commonality of governance due to the Crown’s active involvement in shaping domestic and foreign policy in all 3 countries. No Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland resulted from the Union of the Crowns.
As for the remainder of your post, I don’t see much to disagree with in what you say because you are basically just saying something that is, to the best of my knowledge, broadly true (although I don’t remember being taught about three separate legal systems at primary school, but that was a long time ago and maybe things have changed since then, or perhaps I was just off sick on the day my class was delivered that lesson). The one issue that you mention above that I am not so sure about is UK governments past and present describing the UK as “a multi national state , made up of two countries a principality and a province”. I wouldn’t be too surprised if I found a rare example of that if I dug deep enough and went back far enough, but I suspect that the use of that phrase would be harder to find than a needle in a giant haystack. The default phrase in recent times to my mind is that we are “a country made up of 4 nations”, or a variation of that theme (which is an over-simplification of the arrangement but is a reasonably reliable one-liner that captures the basic gist of things). However, despite the things that you list being broadly true, as far as I am aware they make no difference to the constitutional position of Scotland within the UK that I outlined above.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 17:06:01 GMT
No you have not. You made a general statement. A wee clue. Statutory instruments. And the days of the old Scottish Office Yes I have. I told you some areas where you will find laws that are common to the whole country. If you feel motivated enough then you can do a bit of research and identify what specific laws fall into this category. I am content that this is the case so don’t feel the need or have the time to do this for you. Sorry! |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 17:24:42 GMT
Thomas,
I am assuming that you are not being unduly pedantic here and claiming that there has never been a country called Great Britain simply because the full title of the country that existed between 1707 and 1801 was the Kingdom of Great Britain,
It wasnt a country , as it isnt a country now simply because the only difference is the includsion of the irish province.
Let me reiterate for you.
Between 1603 and 1707 , it was the kingdom of great britian ( the name of an island with three nations and two legally defined countries within it) , and after 1707 ,and the parliamentary union , it was both a kingdom and a multi national state.
Today its still a multi national state , with the only difference being devolution. The clue as i said is in the name , united kingdom .
dont understand the correlation. Scotland and england are , as they were in 1603 , and later 1707 , and again in 1999 all defined as countires within thier own rights within the uk multi national state.
Wether we use the latter day kingdom , or modern day multi national state , it doesnt detract from the multi national status. Im not sure what your example is supposed to signify , but a better example would be France.
France has many regions and languages within its boundaries....basque , breton , german speaker etc etc. The french state though is one legally defined entity , and has been for centuries. They give french marriage and brith certificates , the uk doesnt, france has one legal system , the uk doesnt.
You dont cross from brittany into normandy and cross a completely seperate legal jurisdiction the way you do between scotland and england , where at gretna to berwick there is a clear cultural legal and political boundary.
On top of that , the uk monarch has a scottish title when in scotland ,and an english title south of the border. Not sure what your example is meant to show , but hey ho!
no it didnt. It wound up the two seperate parliaments , but scottish law of the country of scotland continued , the scottish church of the country of scotland continued , as did the scottish education system of the cotunry of scotland continue.
We have scottish sports teams , scottish leagues , scottish language andmuch else. im not sure what you think was extinguished in 1707 old son , but i think you need to re read a bit of history.
I even have a scottish birth and marriage certificate. How can that be true if scotland was extinguished?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 17:27:10 GMT
No you have not. You made a general statement. A wee clue. Statutory instruments. And the days of the old Scottish Office Yes I have. I told you some areas where you will find laws that are common to the whole country. If you feel motivated enough then you can do a bit of research and identify what specific laws fall into this category. I am content that this is the case so don’t feel the need or have the time to do this for you. Sorry! i see you ignored my earlier post. The hallmark of someone who knows he has it wrong.
Jaydee is correct. Unless you can prove otherwise. Over to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 17:34:09 GMT
Happy jack FFS do us one more favour. Stick some spaces in your posts and sort your quote tags out. Im not a grammar pedant by any stretch , but your posts are almost unreadable.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 17:34:44 GMT
No you have not. You made a general statement. A wee clue. Statutory instruments. And the days of the old Scottish Office Yes I have. I told you some areas where you will find laws that are common to the whole country. If you feel motivated enough then you can do a bit of research and identify what specific laws fall into this category. I am content that this is the case so don’t feel the need or have the time to do this for you. Sorry! No you have not. A law common to the whole country is not a British law. For instance drink and driving is common to the whole country. So is the Road Traffic act. Both operate under the law of two different countries. And feel the need is Bravo Sierra that you do not know, but not going to admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 17:46:11 GMT
Yes I have. I told you some areas where you will find laws that are common to the whole country. If you feel motivated enough then you can do a bit of research and identify what specific laws fall into this category. I am content that this is the case so don’t feel the need or have the time to do this for you. Sorry! No you have not. A law common to the whole country is not a British law. For instance drink and driving is common to the whole country. So is the Road Traffic act. Both operate under the law of two different countries. And feel the need is Bravo Sierra that you do not know, but not going to admit it. yep.
Well said jaydee. another example in different laws in the differnt countries is the scottish alcohol in the blood limit for driving is different to englands.
how can that be if scotland was extinguished in 1707 and replaced by some mad country that doesnt exist on any map called brittania uk or whatever greater england is deemed to be called.?
I tell you , the english education system , along with news current affairs or even secondary modern studies has a lot to answer for.
Next up happyjack will be telling us god is an englishman and the earth is flat. I get more sense out of buccaner talking shite about fitba than happy talking about this imaginary country called Britain.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 18:07:12 GMT
It wasnt a country , as it isnt a country now simply because the only difference is the includsion of the irish province.
Let me reiterate for you.
Between 1603 and 1707 , it was the kingdom of great britian ( the name of an island with three nations and two legally defined countries within it) , and after 1707 ,and the parliamentary union , it was both a kingdom and a multi national state.
Today its still a multi national state , with the only difference being devolution. The clue as i said is in the name , untied kingdom .
dont understand the correlation. Scotland and england are , as they were in 1603 , and later 1707 , and again in 1999 all defined as countires within thier own rights within the uk multi national state.
Wether we use the latter day kingdom , or modern day multi national state , it doesnt detract from the multi national status. Im not sure what your example is supposed to signify , but a better example would be France.
France has many regions and languages within its boundaries....basque , breton , german speaker etc etc. The french state though is one legally defined entity , and has been for centuries. They give french marriage and brith certificates , the uk doesnt, france has one legal system , the uk doesnt.
You dont cross from brittany into normandy and cross a completely seperate legal jurisdiction the way you do between scotland and england , where at gretna to berwick there is a clear cultural legal and political boundary.
On top of that , the uk monarch has a scottish title when in scotland ,and an english title south of the border. Not sure what your example is meant to show , but hey ho!
no it didnt. It wound up the two seperate parliaments , but scottish law of the country of scotland continued , the scottish church of the country of scotland continued , as did the scottish education system of the cotunry of scotland continue.
We have scottish sports teams , scottish leagues , scottish language andmuch else. im not sure what you think was extinguished in 1707 old son , but i think you need to re read a bit of history.
I even have a scottish birth and marriage certificate. How can that be true if scotland was extinguished?
Unless and until the provisions of the Acts of Union are repealed or amended, my interpretation of the core constitutional position is as I have outlined above. However, I recognise that we are overloaded with confusing and contradictory commentaries such as those that you have made above which are both unhelpful and harmful because they help create (1) a seriously false and over-inflated impression amongst many Scots that Scotland‘s status within the UK is much more than it is and that Scotland is therefore entitled to much more consideration and special treatment than it gets, and (2) as a result of this over-inflated perception, that Scotland holds (or should hold) much more influence over the rest of the country than a territory comprising 8% of a country’s population should democratically be entitled to hold, leading to the high levels of unjustifiable but understandable resentment we see amongst a sizeable proportion of Scotland’s population when these unrealistic expectations are not realised. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 18:12:25 GMT
It wasnt a country , as it isnt a country now simply because the only difference is the includsion of the irish province.
Let me reiterate for you.
Between 1603 and 1707 , it was the kingdom of great britian ( the name of an island with three nations and two legally defined countries within it) , and after 1707 ,and the parliamentary union , it was both a kingdom and a multi national state.
Today its still a multi national state , with the only difference being devolution. The clue as i said is in the name , untied kingdom .
dont understand the correlation. Scotland and england are , as they were in 1603 , and later 1707 , and again in 1999 all defined as countires within thier own rights within the uk multi national state.
Wether we use the latter day kingdom , or modern day multi national state , it doesnt detract from the multi national status. Im not sure what your example is supposed to signify , but a better example would be France.
France has many regions and languages within its boundaries....basque , breton , german speaker etc etc. The french state though is one legally defined entity , and has been for centuries. They give french marriage and brith certificates , the uk doesnt, france has one legal system , the uk doesnt.
You dont cross from brittany into normandy and cross a completely seperate legal jurisdiction the way you do between scotland and england , where at gretna to berwick there is a clear cultural legal and political boundary.
On top of that , the uk monarch has a scottish title when in scotland ,and an english title south of the border. Not sure what your example is meant to show , but hey ho!
no it didnt. It wound up the two seperate parliaments , but scottish law of the country of scotland continued , the scottish church of the country of scotland continued , as did the scottish education system of the cotunry of scotland continue.
We have scottish sports teams , scottish leagues , scottish language andmuch else. im not sure what you think was extinguished in 1707 old son , but i think you need to re read a bit of history.
I even have a scottish birth and marriage certificate. How can that be true if scotland was extinguished?
Unless and until the provisions of the Acts of Union are repealed or amended, my interpretation of the core constitutional position is as I have outlined above. However, I recognise that we are overloaded with confusing and contradictory commentaries such as those that you have made above which are both unhelpful and harmful because they help create (1) a seriously false and over-inflated impression amongst many Scots that Scotland‘s status within the UK is much more than it is and that Scotland is therefore entitled to much more consideration and special treatment than it gets, and (2) as a result of this over-inflated perception, that Scotland holds (or should hold) much more influence over the rest of the country than a territory comprising 8% of a country’s population should democratically be entitled to hold, leading to the high levels of unjustifiable but understandable resentment we see amongst a sizeable proportion of Scotland’s population when these unrealistic expectations are not realised. reject what you say completely. You imply the acts of union extinguished scotland as a country , that certainly isnt the case legally , culturally , politically or in education .
Once again how can i have a scottish and not a uk birth certificate if scotland is extinguished? Please answer the question if not , we can dismiss the guff you are talking.
The uk of gb and i , now NI , has always been multi national. Now , not only is it multi national still , but since 1999 , the old multi national unitary state ended .
Scotland is recognied as a country by the uk gov , the UN , the EU , and many individual countires around europe and further afield.
Im sorry you cant accept that. buy unfortunately that happens with brainwashing and propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 18:13:39 GMT
No you have not. You made a general statement. A wee clue. Statutory instruments. And the days of the old Scottish Office Yes I have. Where?
|
|
