|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 18:16:19 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?
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. sorry with respect , and i know im acerbic , but you are completely waffling again.
Wether scotland wants independence or not is an irrelevance to its status within the united kingdom multi national state as a country .
Why should one country , thats yours , that only holds 40 % of the land of these islands , have a right to imprison and control its neighbours?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 4, 2023 18:50:35 GMT
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. The Act of the Union is statutory law. That means it is man made. Not the holy grail. It could be dismissed by the Scottish Government tomorrow. But unlike the Westminster wankers the Scottish Government operates under the rule of law. And not a road to go down. As did the former Rhodesia when it declared UDI. For several reasons. One there are a million and one reasons why Scotland should remain part of the UK. One of them is not the economy. That nonsense was put to bed well before the days of Thatcher. Scotland can no longer afford bankrupt England. It is as simple as that. And that is what the SNP has to get over to the average Joe in Scotland. Despite the fact the Westminster wankers have gone out of their way to destroy the Scottish economy, and every opportunity costing the UK tax payer billions, to belittle the SNP. It is not working as things called elections prove. I agree The SNP cannot get it over to the average Joe. But it is getting there Second Scots do not want any status in the UK. It wants to run its own affairs.To get to feck out of a broken corrupt system called Westminster. . England can do what it likes. As long as it does not cost the Scottish tax payer. And in the last indy ref if David Cameron had the brains to apply FFA, which was expected. The SNP would have accepted. Instead he ranted EVEL two seconds after the result was known. Making Scots second hand citizens in their own country. Westminster cannot be trusted. Then do not forget. That everything the Westminster lying wankers said would happen if Scotland left the Union. Has happened while Scotland was in the Union. In terms of how you see it. Does not alter one fact or one jot that the UK or GB, call it what you like. It is not a country. It is a sovereign state of 4 countries held together by the act of the Union/ Which is clearly now not voluntary. And I say again. You have not pointed out one British Law. Because like a British Policeman. There is no such thing. I have no idea why a simple fact like that is getting to you . |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Jan 4, 2023 19:45:47 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?
Good point.
These tidily scraps of land are all very when it is somewhere such as Barbados and where Charlie can forgo the fees in return for the sun, sea, rum and gaiety of the nation.
But Scotland? Even the midges are on tranquilisers
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 4, 2023 20:09:36 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?
Good point.
These tidily scraps of land are all very when it is somewhere such as Barbados and where Charlie can forgo the fees in return for the sun, sea, rum and gaiety of the nation.
But Scotland? Even the midges are on tranquilisers
whats good about his point? King charlie has just sworn to uphold scotlands claim of right borkie. I dont suppose om has even heard of it.
anyway borkie i suppose you need a wee distraction , worrying about that nice man starmer getting into power and taxing the tory pensioners till the pips squeak. 
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 21:22:41 GMT
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.
Are you still doing your research, lads - or are you too busy plumping up each other’s fragile faux confidence on this one to do any actual digging? As I said before, I am not going to do all the running around for you on this but here’s something that should help you get there a bit quicker. Bear in mind that I have already pointed you at finance legislation so maybe you could start focussing on that. Just to help you a bit more, look for the function that tells you which geographical areas a particular piece of legislation applies to. When you hit one that says “UK” (and you will) then bingo! Oh, WTF. I don’t want to make things too challenging for you or to eat up too much of your valuable time on this, so I have even tried to leave it open at a helpful page. I can do no more ! www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/40/section/1?view=extent
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 4, 2023 23:54:08 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. I am not sure what a quote tag is never mind know how to sort them out. I am new on here and haven’t worked out how best to utilise the presentational facilities. One thing that would help is if I could get the preview function to work.This would allow me to see what my posts looked like before submitting and give me a chance to tidy things up - but so far it is failing to engage. Also, what spaces do you want? Surely if my punctuation and syntax are both reasonable (which they generally are given that this is just a wee online forum thingy) then there should be little problem following the gist of my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 5, 2023 9:16:31 GMT
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.
Are you still doing your research, lads - or are you too busy plumping up each other’s fragile faux confidence on this one to do any actual digging? As I said before, I am not going to do all the running around for you on this but here’s something that should help you get there a bit quicker. Bear in mind that I have already pointed you at finance legislation so maybe you could start focussing on that. Just to help you a bit more, look for the function that tells you which geographical areas a particular piece of legislation applies to. When you hit one that says “UK” (and you will) then bingo! Oh, WTF. I don’t want to make things too challenging for you or to eat up too much of your valuable time on this, so I have even tried to leave it open at a helpful page. I can do no more ! www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/40/section/1?view=extent
Thanks for the link to Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 .
Now whats your point caller?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 5, 2023 9:17:17 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. I am not sure what a quote tag is never mind know how to sort them out. I am new on here and haven’t worked out how best to utilise the presentational facilities. One thing that would help is if I could get the preview function to work.This would allow me to see what my posts looked like before submitting and give me a chance to tidy things up - but so far it is failing to engage. Also, what spaces do you want? Surely if my punctuation and syntax are both reasonable (which they generally are given that this is just a wee online forum thingy) then there should be little problem following the gist of my posts. perhaps a mod could help you use quote tags. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 5, 2023 9:32:11 GMT
In the 1990's Labour foolishly created a devolved Scottish Parliament, not for reasons of equality, but because of Donald Dewar's hatred. England was not given a similar devolved body. So why should Scotland have been, when proportionally speaking a voter in Scotland has better representation at constituency level than a voter in England? It's disproportionate racist imbalance.
Abolish the Scottish Parliament, or create an English one and federate the UK the way the USA is federated.
But do not leave things as they are.
And regarding the monarchy, by all means have a referendum on it. UK wide vote, no electoral college crap.
What our whole country wants, irrespective of whether the non sovereign state of Scotland wants something different, wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 5, 2023 9:48:51 GMT
In the 1990's Labour foolishly created a devolved Scottish Parliament, not for reasons of equality, but because of Donald Dewar's hatred. No vinny thats not true. I posted a link in this very section on events leading up to the devolution settlement , but home rule for scotland is somethingnlike the best part of three hundred odd years old , with lord seafield proposing the first home rule bill in 1714.
Im not sure what donald dewars alleged hatred has to do with anything. It was the will of the scottish people.
not strictly true. Im no fan of labour as you well know , but england was offered regional devolution which it turned down. I do though agree england should have been offered their own national parliament , but thats not scotland fault , and something you need to address with westmisnter and your own political parties.
...becasue we campaigned for it for centuries , and voted for it by an overwhelming majority of nearly 75 % when given the chance. Sorry you dont like democracy vinny , but you have to take the good with the bad.
Dont understand the point. Are you arguing any country that has a better more democratic system than englands should be denied democracy because of english jealousy and ineptitude to campaign for better democracy in their own nation?
eh?
move to scotland and campaign for it. At the minute , around 6 % on average of the scottish electorate want to abolish holyrood , so you have a long way to go.
i think the general implication is vinny once scotaland leaves the uk we will have a vote of our own electorate on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 5, 2023 9:52:02 GMT
Regional devolution is not the same as a state Parliament like Scotland has.
Labour's proposal was to break England up, but not the other member states of the UK.
Labour's proposal was soft racism.
If you advocate regional devolution for England you must advocate it for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.
Have each state in this sovereign country EQUAL.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 5, 2023 10:01:42 GMT
Regional devolution is not the same as a state Parliament like Scotland has. Labour's proposal was to break England up, but not the other member states of the UK. Labour's proposal was soft racism. If you advocate regional devolution for England you must advocate it for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. Have each state in this sovereign country EQUAL. Vinny why do you consistently fail to respond to points then start off at another tangent ranting about something else? You do yourself no favours.
i didnt say it was. I categorically said that it wasnt true labour didnt offer devolution to england , that the english didnt want the devoltuion they did offer , and that i support an english parliament too. Wheres the contention ?
I blieve that is and was wrong. Wheres the contention between us yet again?
you seem vey eager to exaggerate with this word at every given opportunity. Hyperbole does you no favours .
I dont.
see my above reply. Tell westmisnter not me or the scottish people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 5, 2023 10:10:43 GMT
So, we agree that England was not offered the equivalent of the Scottish Parliament.
And yet some, think there is an English Parliament, there is not.
The Commons, should only be for debating and legislating on national (UK wide issues).
There should be an English Parliament.
The Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies should be upgraded to Parliaments.
Alternatively, devolution scrapped.
Everything done through the Commons but with more MPs (800) and smaller constituencies (elected on a PR basis).
UK wide referendum on the matter:
English Parliament (and upgrade of Welsh / Northern Irish Assemblies to Parliament status) vs Abolition of all devolved bodies and replacement with 800 proportionally elected MPs in Commons using the D'hondt system, with additional constituencies created in each state of the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 5, 2023 10:21:59 GMT
So, we agree that England was not offered the equivalent of the Scottish Parliament. yep. You got there vinny.
well the argument is westmisnter is the de facto english parliament , but thats another story. I agree though with you on the devolution settlement.
No. If scotland needs a union parliament to be part of , we have the bigger european parliament at brussells making the english one at westmisnter redundant.
you are ranting again , while repeating yourself. I have already agreed with you. Thats what scottish indy is partly about , helping the english regain their own parliament.........
rinse and repeat .See my reply further back up the thread.
no. See my reply further back in this post.
Im not interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 5, 2023 10:22:22 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?
Good point.
These tidily scraps of land are all very when it is somewhere such as Barbados and where Charlie can forgo the fees in return for the sun, sea, rum and gaiety of the nation.
But Scotland? Even the midges are on tranquilisers
Ah Botchy the glazed eyed one line wonder. In England the midges have to go to food banks and sit in buses to keep warm. Is there any purpose to your post. You the speech writer for D.Ross. By the way what was the good point. |
|
