|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 12:04:29 GMT
Jaydee, you said “I am still waiting on a answer what jurisdiction takes you to court on your UK law. Would you care to point out a UK court. Would you care to point to a UK prison. Would you care to point to a UK Police officer. Because what you are saying if you fall foul of the law in Scotland you can be tried in England. Let me give the technical expression.. NO Example please.. I am all ears”No, I am not saying that at all. Try having another read of what I have said and see if you can grasp it. And as for the list of things that you ask me to point out, notwithstanding that none of that stuff is relevant to the point, how can I do any of that when you say “ NO Example please”? No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. I say that because there is UK law and I am not saying what you say I am saying. And I am not surprised, given your failure to grasp other simple things on here, that you have read what I said again and still grasped the same wrong understanding. I’m afraid that I can’t explain it any more simply for you. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 12:10:12 GMT
Having extracted your tacit agreement of your error regarding an imaginary entity called uk law , moving on , this is an interesting quote above.
The answer is no i dont.
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible.
Your attempt at poor logic above that states if the law of scotland is preserved , so must the union be is false.
The proper logic is that while scotland is in the union , the very treaty your country signed up to was that scots law must be preserved , and could not be ended. If you want to end scots law in the yookay, you end the treaty of union........
You haven’t extracted any agreement from me, tacit or otherwise. Unless you are claiming that the source that I provided you a link to is wrong, and can prove it to be wrong, then we are apparently at an impasse. Just repeatedly declaring it to be wrong is not evidence that it is wrong btw. In truth, I would like to tidy this one up in a non-adversarial way if we could. Like you, I have always understood the 3 legal systems principle, but there is validity in referring to UK law based upon that link. I don’t believe or take it to mean that UK law is a 4th legal system but, rather, that it is the term employed to describe those laws which apply equally to all parts of the UK and which therefore “overarch” the 3 separate legal systems eg. most (but not all) taxation laws. One merely needs to read the thread to see the validity of my words , and who is telling porkies. Moving on now........
Nonsense.
Ireland withdrew from the treaty of union 1801 in 1919 by setting up the dail and declaring independence.
The uk parliament cannot end scots law at any time while the existing treaty lasts. I do hope they try , as it would be another welcome stick and nail in the coffin of this disasterous union.
Nothing inconsistent about it at all . Im merely telling you what the actual treaty says regarding scots law , and that i disagree with the treaty and support scots indy.
Is this you getting ready to delve in to another bout of arguing semantics?
Clearly the english king was king of England , ireland , and wales , three nations under one king.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 13:07:09 GMT
You haven’t extracted any agreement from me, tacit or otherwise. Unless you are claiming that the source that I provided you a link to is wrong, and can prove it to be wrong, then we are apparently at an impasse. Just repeatedly declaring it to be wrong is not evidence that it is wrong btw. In truth, I would like to tidy this one up in a non-adversarial way if we could. Like you, I have always understood the 3 legal systems principle, but there is validity in referring to UK law based upon that link. I don’t believe or take it to mean that UK law is a 4th legal system but, rather, that it is the term employed to describe those laws which apply equally to all parts of the UK and which therefore “overarch” the 3 separate legal systems eg. most (but not all) taxation laws. One merely needs to read the thread to see the validity of my words , and who is telling porkies. Moving on now........
In other words, you can’t offer any proof...and one merely needs to read the thread to see the validity of my words.
Nonsense.
Ireland withdrew from the treaty of union 1801 in 1919 by setting up the dail and declaring independence.
There was no treaty of union 1801, and any treaty or articles which may have been set up in advance of the Act of Union 1800 expired with the implementation of that act.
Ireland may well have declared independence back then but it didn’t leave the UK until the UK Parliament agreed to it doing so years later.
The uk parliament cannot end scots law at any time while the existing treaty lasts. I do hope they try , as it would be another welcome stick and nail in the coffin of this disasterous union.
Once again, there is no treaty in existence - and, as I have already explained, yes they can.
I note that you offer no explanation to counter mine or to support your claim, but just insist on continuing with your inconsistent cherry-picking of what to accept and what to reject based simply upon whether it furthers the false narrative that you choose to buy into and to promote.
Nothing inconsistent about it at all . Im merely telling you what the actual treaty says regarding scots law , and that i disagree with the treaty and support scots indy.
No, you weren’t merely telling me that. You were telling me that a treaty exists between Scotland and England and that either party can withdraw from it at any time. It doesn’t and therefore they can’t. That treaty was superseded by Acts of Parliament which have been implemented, the result of which is that the 2 signatories to the treaty and to the Acts of Parliament no longer exist, never mind have the right to withdraw.
Is this you getting ready to delve in to another bout of arguing semantics?
Clearly the english king was king of England , ireland , and wales , three nations under one king.
But Ireland was not part of the Kingdom of England but a separate kingdom in its own right, albeit with the same monarch ( not a king but a queen, I believe, at that time), the same monarch as Scotland had back then. However Ireland did not feature in the 1707 Acts of Union and never was part of Great Britain.
This stuff is hardly semantics but I can appreciate that it might suit you to brush off glaring errors in what you say as being such. For someone who is so forthright in expressing his views and so quick to pick up and ridicule what you perceive to be mistakes in what others say (but often aren’t mistakes at all) you do seem to get a lot of basic facts wrong. A little self-awareness and humility would go a long way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 13:07:38 GMT
No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. I say that because there is UK law and I am not saying what you say I am saying. And I am not surprised, given your failure to grasp other simple things on here, that you have read what I said again and still grasped the same wrong understanding. I’m afraid that I can’t explain it any more simply for you. I had this nonsense from you on the old forum. So let me ask you again No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. And I am totally grasping what you are saying. You are saying in one breath there is UK law and in the next when I ask the question again as in bold italics. You say that is not what you are saying. Which way are you wanting this. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 13:15:20 GMT
I say that because there is UK law and I am not saying what you say I am saying. And I am not surprised, given your failure to grasp other simple things on here, that you have read what I said again and still grasped the same wrong understanding. I’m afraid that I can’t explain it any more simply for you. I had this nonsense from you on the old forum. So let me ask you again No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. And I am totally grasping what you are saying. You are saying in one breath there is UK law and in the next when I ask the question again as in bold italics. You say that is not what you ar e saying. Which way are you wanting this. No, you didn’t get this nonsense from me on the old forum. I refused to engage with you on the old forum because it was a complete waste of time and energy doing so for the reasons I explained back then. I am trying to give it another go as we are on a new forum but, frankly, the quality of your posts and your thinking hasn’t improved so I am not sure how much longer I can continue to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 13:22:20 GMT
One merely needs to read the thread to see the validity of my words , and who is telling porkies. Moving on now........
In other words, you can’t offer any proof...and one merely needs to read the thread to see the validity of my words. Wheres the validity in someone words who thinks there is such a thngs as uk law , but cant prove it , and squirms in every thread he poisons with his semantics , bullshit and innuendo?
You make a claim , you back it up , and you cant. Time and again.....
denying reality while arguing semantics yet again?
The point is you insinuated no one could leave the treaty of union outside of a short timescale of implementation , yet ireland which had been part of the english kingdom since the 12th century , and sent representatives to the westmisnter parliament from 1801 , did exactly that 118 years later after being in one form of "union" or the other with England for over 7 centuries by that point......
what we will do is ignore the semantics from now on , and i will pick out anything i can dredge from the drivel you post worth commenting on.
...and im still telling you that. As evidenced and backed by my point on ireland doing the very same withdrawing from a very same treaty/act ( call it what you will )of union .
If countries cant withdraw from larger states/countires /unions ( the terminology matters not) we would nt have had 62 countires wihtdraw from the british empire alone , and the world would still resemble the "countries" or states that existed thousands of years ago.
yawn. The english king was king of ireland prior to 1603 , while the english king was not king of scotland prior to 1603.
Have you come to terms with the fact little scotland the country issues birth certificates and marriage certificates while the uk doesnt?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 14:11:30 GMT
I had this nonsense from you on the old forum. So let me ask you again No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. And I am totally grasping what you are saying. You are saying in one breath there is UK law and in the next when I ask the question again as in bold italics. You say that is not what you ar e saying. Which way are you wanting this. No, you didn’t get this nonsense from me on the old forum. I refused to engage with you on the old forum because it was a complete waste of time and energy doing so for the reasons I explained back then. I am trying to give it another go as we are on a new forum but, frankly, the quality of your posts and your thinking hasn’t improved so I am not sure how much longer I can continue to do so. Yes I did get this nonsense for you on the old forum. I cannot recall the description you used on your thinking about the ferry cock up. That made you not vote for the SNP It was so bizarre it was complete laughable nonsense. Confusing a £70 million cock up on two ferry's with the hundred of billions that the wankers in Westminster wasted. You could have bought hundred of thousands of ferry's. Do remind me of the expression you used. So in your deluded reason. That you tried to explain back then. How did you equate this £70 million cock up with hundreds of billions of total incompetence. Some £70 billion of that in 44 days of the Truss administration. So tell me how would that not make you change your mind and you to vote for the SNP. . I wish I could remember that expression. If you have a problem understanding what I am saying and I have heard all this drivel before. Just ask. Its very simple. I am saying there is no such thing as UK law. Which part of that do you not understand. So lets get the ducks in order. You have made the statement that there is a UK law. So far you have failed to produce one. You produced one link common to the UK. That was English law. So let me ask you again What jurisdiction deals with this UK law. Point to one UK court. Point to one UK police officer. Point to one UK judge. Point to one UK Jury. Its a very simple question. And matey like you did the last time before you disappeared. You will keep waffling garbage, kidding on you answered. till you realise you have run out of waffle. You ran out of waffle several posts back. That is he reason the last time you refused to engage. And this is going to be a repeat. Heard it all before. In case the penny is not dropping. Its the quality of your posts and thinking that is being scrutinized. Not mine. Three posters are asking the same question. Your stock reply to all three. As in all who will not accept they are wrong. You have already gave a answer. NO YOU HAVE NOT. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 14:33:19 GMT
No, you didn’t get this nonsense from me on the old forum. I refused to engage with you on the old forum because it was a complete waste of time and energy doing so for the reasons I explained back then. I am trying to give it another go as we are on a new forum but, frankly, the quality of your posts and your thinking hasn’t improved so I am not sure how much longer I can continue to do so. Yes I did get this nonsense for you on the old forum. I cannot recall the description you used on your thinking about the ferry cock up. That made you not vote for the SNP It was so bizarre it was complete laughable nonsense. Confusing a £70 million cock up on two ferry's with the hundred of billions that the wankers in Westminster wasted. You could have bought hundred of thousands of ferry's. Do remind me of the expression you used. So in your deluded reason. That you tried to explain back then. How did you equate this £70 million cock up with hundreds of billions of total incompetence. Some £70 billion of that in 44 days of the Truss administration. So tell me how would that not make you change your mind and you to vote for the SNP. . I wish I could remember that expression. If you have a problem understanding what I am saying and I have heard all this drivel before. Just ask. Its very simple. I am saying there is no such thing as UK law. Which part of that do you not understand. So lets get the ducks in order. You have made the statement that there is a UK law. So far you have failed to produce one. You produced one link common to the UK. That was English law. So let me ask you again What jurisdiction deals with this UK law. Point to one UK court. Point to one UK police officer. Point to one UK judge. Point to one UK Jury. Its a very simple question. And matey like you did the last time before you disappeared. You will keep waffling garbage, kidding on you answered. till you realise you have run out of waffle. You ran out of waffle several posts back. That is he reason the last time you refused to engage. And this is going to be a repeat. Heard it all before. In case the penny is not dropping. Its the quality of your posts and thinking that is being scrutinized. Not mine. Three posters are asking the same question. Your stock reply to all three. As in all who will not accept they are wrong. You have already gave a answer. NO YOU HAVE NOT.Happy jack when he is asked to provide evidence of uk law.........
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 16:20:58 GMT
Wheres the validity in someone words who thinks there is such a thngs as uk law , but cant prove it , and squirms in every thread he poisons with his semantics , bullshit and innuendo?
You make a claim , you back it up , and you cant. Time and again.....
The validity is in the the evidence that I have given and referred you to on several occasions that you choose to disregard. You have, instead, just stamped your feet and said that it is not true without giving any evidence to back you up, simply referring to the 3 separate legal systems ( which I don’t dispute exist).
I have noticed that many Indy fantasists, when faced with logic, argument and evidence that does not align with their twisted and erroneous narrative and which they cannot overcome with their flimsy half-truths, myths and factoids, often quickly resort to undignified behaviour and insults. I am starting to wonder if that’s what I am dealing with here.
denying reality while arguing semantics yet again?
The point is you insinuated no one could leave the treaty of union outside of a short timescale of implementation , yet ireland which had been part of the english kingdom since the 12th century , and sent representatives to the westmisnter parliament from 1801 , did exactly that 118 years later after being in one form of "union" or the other with England for over 7 centuries by that point......
No, I am trying, not just here but with many other erroneous claims that you make, to ensure that you face up to the realities (or failing that, to expose your claims as erroneous so that others can see just how unreliable much of what you say is) rather than allow you to twist things beyond recognition with impunity just to create a false narrative that suits the Indy agenda. If you are going to argue for independence then do so based upon the facts and not the Indy fantasies and myths.
I am not insinuating anything and I am not saying, and did not say, that “no-one could leave a treaty of union outside of a short timescale of implementation”. What I am saying is that any party to any treaty can withdraw from that treaty at any point that they so choose while that treaty is in place and active. I actually made the point that I agreed with you on this in my earlier post.
However, after the Treaty of Union was signed in August of 1706, the parties returned to their respective parliaments to put together the legislation (ie the Acts of Union) that that they had committed themselves to when they signed the Treaty of Union.
Both parties then produced their respective versions of the Act of Union and got them through their respective parliaments by January 1707, following which the acts were implemented on 1st May 1707 when the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England ceased to exist and the Kingdom of Great Britain began. With that, the objectives of the Treaty of Union 1706 had been fulfilled and it therefore expired. After that point, particularly as the treaty had expired but also because neither signatory existed anymore and the terms of the Acts of Union were up and running, then the terms of the Acts of Union applied.
I assume that there was some form of treaty in place between Great Britain and Ireland in the run up to the Act of Union 1800. If there was then during that period either party could have theoretically been able to withdraw up to the point where the Act of Union 1800 was implemented (ie. 1st January 1801) after which any treaty that had been in place expired having had its objectives fulfilled.
ireland did not withdraw from the treaty of union 118 years later but it did secede from the UK in 1922 ( I think that is the right date?). It only did so after the UK parliament agreed to let it leave ( although it was Hobson’s Choice by then given the determination and the sacrifice shown by the Irish people in the years running up to that point).
Just as an aside, there is nothing like that level of determination or willingness to self-sacrifice in present day Scotland, and despite what we might see from some Indy types on here, the majority of Indy-leaning Scots are not consumed with independence, so I don’t think that direct action will bring about independence in Scotland.
what we will do is ignore the semantics from now on , and i will pick out anything i can dredge from the drivel you post worth commenting on.
You must do whatever you want. As I said above, most of what you call semantics is nothing of the sort. Some of it is correcting significant flaws in your understanding and all of it involves the unravelling of the twisted and erroneous Indy narrative so that the facts are laid bare. And, as I also said somewhere above, insults are the default position of many Indy fantasists when they come up against inconvenient truths so I will expect nothing less.
...and im still telling you that. As evidenced and backed by my point on ireland doing the very same withdrawing from a very same treaty/act ( call it what you will )of union .
Ah, I see from this response that you don’t understand the difference between the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union (and perhaps not the difference between a treaty between two willing parties and an act of Parliament). Hopefully, if you actually read my comments above and in my earlier post without doing so through tartan tinged lenses, you will by now have picked up that they are very different things with seriously different implications. If not, it looks like you need to do a little bit of research on this matter.
If countries cant withdraw from larger states/countires /unions ( the terminology matters not) we would nt have had 62 countires wihtdraw from the british empire alone , and the world would still resemble the "countries" or states that existed thousands of years ago.
But, as I have explained in an earlier post above, Scotland is not a country and it not in union with any larger state/country/ union. Rather, Scotland is just a territory within the country of the UK. And, of course, the map of the world changes all the time in respect of where lines are drawn and what countries are called. And, of course, Scotland is not the only territory in the world that could/will never change its status, shape or name. However, the territory of Scotland has no automatic right to leave the UK and the UK has no obligation to give Scotland the right to do so either. In fact, the 2014 referendum should be viewed as an exceptional concession and the default position needs to be accepted as the status quo.
yawn. The english king was king of ireland prior to 1603 , while the english king was not king of scotland prior to 1603.
So what? Are you still trying to wrongly imply that Ireland became part of Great Britain in 1707 or is this just you waffling rather than acknowledging the “facts” as you stated were wrong again?
Have you come to terms with the fact little scotland the country issues birth certificates and marriage certificates while the uk doesnt?
Putting aside the fact that Scotland is not a country, so what? Different parts of a country issue documents for people from that part of the country. Hold the front page !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 7, 2023 17:21:31 GMT
Wheres the validity in someone words who thinks there is such a thngs as uk law , but cant prove it , and squirms in every thread he poisons with his semantics , bullshit and innuendo?
You make a claim , you back it up , and you cant. Time and again.....
The validity is in the the evidence that I have given and referred you to on several occasions that you choose to disregard. You have, instead, just stamped your feet and said that it is not true without giving any evidence to back you up, simply referring to the 3 separate legal systems ( which I don’t dispute exist).
I have noticed that many Indy fantasists, when faced with logic, argument and evidence that does not align with their twisted and erroneous narrative and which they cannot overcome with their flimsy half-truths, myths and factoids, often quickly resort to undignified behaviour and insults. I am starting to wonder if that’s what I am dealing with here.
denying reality while arguing semantics yet again?
The point is you insinuated no one could leave the treaty of union outside of a short timescale of implementation , yet ireland which had been part of the english kingdom since the 12th century , and sent representatives to the westmisnter parliament from 1801 , did exactly that 118 years later after being in one form of "union" or the other with England for over 7 centuries by that point......
No, I am trying, not just here but with many other erroneous claims that you make, to ensure that you face up to the realities (or failing that, to expose your claims as erroneous so that others can see just how unreliable much of what you say is) rather than allow you to twist things beyond recognition with impunity just to create a false narrative that suits the Indy agenda. If you are going to argue for independence then do so based upon the facts and not the Indy fantasies and myths.
I am not insinuating anything and I am not saying, and did not say, that “no-one could leave a treaty of union outside of a short timescale of implementation”. What I am saying is that any party to any treaty can withdraw from that treaty at any point that they so choose while that treaty is in place and active. I actually made the point that I agreed with you on this in my earlier post.
However, after the Treaty of Union was signed in August of 1706, the parties returned to their respective parliaments to put together the legislation (ie the Acts of Union) that that they had committed themselves to when they signed the Treaty of Union.
Both parties then produced their respective versions of the Act of Union and got them through their respective parliaments by January 1707, following which the acts were implemented on 1st May 1707 when the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England ceased to exist and the Kingdom of Great Britain began. With that, the objectives of the Treaty of Union 1706 had been fulfilled and it therefore expired. After that point, particularly as the treaty had expired but also because neither signatory existed anymore and the terms of the Acts of Union were up and running, then the terms of the Acts of Union applied.
I assume that there was some form of treaty in place between Great Britain and Ireland in the run up to the Act of Union 1800. If there was then during that period either party could have theoretically been able to withdraw up to the point where the Act of Union 1800 was implemented (ie. 1st January 1801) after which any treaty that had been in place expired having had its objectives fulfilled.
ireland did not withdraw from the treaty of union 118 years later but it did secede from the UK in 1922 ( I think that is the right date?). It only did so after the UK parliament agreed to let it leave ( although it was Hobson’s Choice by then given the determination and the sacrifice shown by the Irish people in the years running up to that point).
Just as an aside, there is nothing like that level of determination or willingness to self-sacrifice in present day Scotland, and despite what we might see from some Indy types on here, the majority of Indy-leaning Scots are not consumed with independence, so I don’t think that direct action will bring about independence in Scotland.
what we will do is ignore the semantics from now on , and i will pick out anything i can dredge from the drivel you post worth commenting on.
You must do whatever you want. As I said above, most of what you call semantics is nothing of the sort. Some of it is correcting significant flaws in your understanding and all of it involves the unravelling of the twisted and erroneous Indy narrative so that the facts are laid bare. And, as I also said somewhere above, insults are the default position of many Indy fantasists when they come up against inconvenient truths so I will expect nothing less.
...and im still telling you that. As evidenced and backed by my point on ireland doing the very same withdrawing from a very same treaty/act ( call it what you will )of union .
Ah, I see from this response that you don’t understand the difference between the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union (and perhaps not the difference between a treaty between two willing parties and an act of Parliament). Hopefully, if you actually read my comments above and in my earlier post without doing so through tartan tinged lenses, you will by now have picked up that they are very different things with seriously different implications. If not, it looks like you need to do a little bit of research on this matter.
If countries cant withdraw from larger states/countires /unions ( the terminology matters not) we would nt have had 62 countires wihtdraw from the british empire alone , and the world would still resemble the "countries" or states that existed thousands of years ago.
But, as I have explained in an earlier post above, Scotland is not a country and it not in union with any larger state/country/ union. Rather, Scotland is just a territory within the country of the UK. And, of course, the map of the world changes all the time in respect of where lines are drawn and what countries are called. And, of course, Scotland is not the only territory in the world that could/will never change its status, shape or name. However, the territory of Scotland has no automatic right to leave the UK and the UK has no obligation to give Scotland the right to do so either. In fact, the 2014 referendum should be viewed as an exceptional concession and the default position needs to be accepted as the status quo.
yawn. The english king was king of ireland prior to 1603 , while the english king was not king of scotland prior to 1603.
So what? Are you still trying to wrongly imply that Ireland became part of Great Britain in 1707 or is this just you waffling rather than acknowledging the “facts” as you stated were wrong again?
Have you come to terms with the fact little scotland the country issues birth certificates and marriage certificates while the uk doesnt?
Putting aside the fact that Scotland is not a country, so what? Different parts of a country issue documents for people from that part of the country. Hold the front page !!!
Hi happyjack and everyone else involved in this debate What is the point of all this? Scotland definitely was a country or a state or a nation before the union and is either one of the three or all 3 at once afterwards. Ferreting about in ancient documents and interpreting what the mean to get some sort of outcome is to serve what purpose? I'm asking everyone that. From your own individual points of view? That is, if what you're trying to prove turns out to be technically true, what difference does it make to the current situation? That aside, I have different ways of thinking about things, none of which might be technically accurate. It's just what I think. So, if someone not from the UK, asked me what the following is, my instincts would answer as follows Scotland? - a country England? - a country Wales? - a country Northern Ireland? - that's a hard one. I'd probably just say it's geographically part of Ireland but politically part of the UK. The UK? - a country. So there you are. A totally subjective way of thinking. All the technical evidence in the world would not draw me into answering differently. Why would I answer that way? It's just that the terms state and nation don't come as naturally to me as descriptive of status of discrete geographical and historical status. I don't think I'd use the word nation in any context, except in the context of something like the United Nations and only use the word state when describing somehing that the term has embedded into it's history such as the states of the US or Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 17:31:45 GMT
Wheres the validity in someone words who thinks there is such a thngs as uk law , but cant prove it , and squirms in every thread he poisons with his semantics , bullshit and innuendo?
You make a claim , you back it up , and you cant. Time and again.....
The validity is in the the evidence that I have given and referred you to on several occasions that you choose to disregard. You have, instead, just stamped your feet and said that it is not true without giving any evidence to back you up, simply referring to the 3 separate legal systems ( which I don’t dispute exist).
Again i accept your tacit admission you are wrong , both by accepting the three differing legal systems exist in your above quote , and by your earlier admission of being wrong by accepting that scots law does exist and is preserved for all time in the act of union.
You do understand scots law and uk law cannot exist together? One negates the existence of the other.
poor you. Is the big truthfull words in the white spaces too abrasive for you to deal with?
You agree with my point yet again , then waffle a great deal of vacuous drivel , before reaching your next bout of a poor attempt at face saving by posting this drivel.
Ireland withdrew from the treaty of union and declared independence in january 1919. (something you alternated between claiming couldnt be and could be done )The uk agreed with the irish via treaty in December 1921 two years and a war later.
The treaty was a "fait accompli" recognising something that had already happened.
Trying to couch language regading law , legal systems and legislation in fog to give a false impression is what i would call arguing semantics.
Where? Im always ready to learn something new that can expand my mind , but so far it appears im consistently doing the teaching .
Yawn. Lots of words and thinly veiled insults , but no answer to my point what ireland withdrew from or the other 61 nations of the world , scotland can certainly withdraw from. Ireland was bound by treaty to london rule for double what we have been , and they still withdrew from it.
..because you claim something cant happen in your warped imagination ,despite all the evidence to the contrary doesnt make it so.
Every empire or entity in history has claimed the same as far back as scholastic research could penetrate , that its territories werent countries and couldnt leave. It still happened.
140 new states emerged alone in the 20 th century , many of them leaving london rule.
semantics again .That "territory" is one of the oldest countires in the world , and fits all the criteria of the term country excepting being sovereign and independent for now. The fact you dont recognise it in your parrallel universe , when most scots , the uk government , the united nations , FIFA , UEFA , the EU and so on do isnt my problem.
Theres no help for delusion.
International law says you are talking out your rear end...
Self-determination
The right of a people to self-determination[1] is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[2][3] It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference
Even the uk government itself has never denied scotland has a right to self determination. As i said , there is the real world , and then theres happyjacks world.
so what? You do realise a king is head of a kingdom. In your world , is a cunt head of a country?
Marriage , birth and passports are three of the most important documents you will hold. All three give data for example on nationality/citizenship .Two of mine say scottish , one says uk .
If scotland doesnt exist outside of being a uk territory , how can it issue documents that the uk cannot ?
Its still being held while you apparently go and get us proof of the imaginary "uk Law".
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 17:38:37 GMT
Hi happyjack and everyone else involved in this debate What is the point of all this? I think there are two main points for happyjack in this. It helps him enforce his delusional world view if he gets agreement from others on his warped imagination and of course its all part of the bitter together propaganda we scots have been used to waffling out brit nats mouths for years from the Joeseph Goebbels book of propaganda
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 18:26:44 GMT
I had this nonsense from you on the old forum. So let me ask you again No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. And I am totally grasping what you are saying. You are saying in one breath there is UK law and in the next when I ask the question again as in bold italics. You say that is not what you ar e saying. Which way are you wanting this. No, you didn’t get this nonsense from me on the old forum. I refused to engage with you on the old forum because it was a complete waste of time and energy doing so for the reasons I explained back then. I am trying to give it another go as we are on a new forum but, frankly, the quality of your posts and your thinking hasn’t improved so I am not sure how much longer I can continue to do so. 
I havent laughed so hard happy since you told me scotland wasnt allowed to leave the onion.
You dont want to engage with jaydee because he tells you the truth and rubbishes your claims?
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 18:28:41 GMT
Putting aside the fact that Scotland is not a country, so what? Different parts of a country issue documents for people from that part of the country. Hold the front page !!! Putting aside the fact there is no such thing as a country called the UK GB or Britain. It is a sovereign state of 4 countries. I now remember your opening drivel on the old forum with Ycop001. This is what you ranted. You were going to vote SNP but after taking risk assessment on the ferry cock up, you decided against it. I laughed my balls of when I read that. From there on in until you left in stupidity. I kept asking you what does Risk Assessment mean and did you apply this criteria when it was pointed out Failing Grayling cost the tax payer over £20 Billion on his escapades. One of those involving hundreds of thousands wasted on when he hired a ferry firm that did not even own a canoe. Or did you take Risk Assessment on the hundreds of billions wasted by the Westminster wankers on the pandemic. Or did you take Risk assessment on Hinkley Point. Billions over budget and 6 years over due. Not to mention Risk assessment on the High Speed link and many others. So perhaps after all this time you can explain your risk assessment conclusion. Because matey to be quite frank it has me fecked. Each time it is the the same answer. You had already answered and here we go again. As once again Its the quality of your posts and thinking that is being scrutinized. Not mine. Three posters are asking the same question. Back to the now. As like before you said you did not understand my post. Same crap. It is very simple I am saying there is no such thing as a UK law. You are saying there is. And now Scotland is not a country. I wonder what Scottish Law means. Is there a Yorkshire Law, Is there a Cornwall Law. Is there a North east law. Now let me think.. NO. Its called English law. Let me ask you again and it is not going to go away. In this magic fairy land of yours. Who has jurisdiction on your UK law. Would you care to point to a UK court, a UK police officer, a UK judge, a UK prison. The answer and you know it is no. Then can you tell me if I break a law in Scotland what UK law would have me dragged over the Border and put in the tower of London. As once again as in the past. You will go in the huff. But it is not finished. I made a statement that the Scottish Government has underspent every year. You said it had not. Then you supplied a link which I have posted dozen of times. The link and the clue is in the name, is called Total Underspend. You stating it had proven the ScotGov had not underspent. .Well matey your link is below. And I have lost count asking you were it states the Scottish Government had not underspent. Once again you said you had supplied this evidence. No you have not. The evidence that you supplied stated it has underspent. Then I posted the UK is the 14th Richest country in Europe. That makes it impossible to be the 5th Richest in the word. It is in fact between 28th and 38th Richest Country in the world depending on what GDP criteria is used. That of course is fluid and it goes up and down. That is basket case third world economy. As energy rich Scotland is getting dragged on a race to the bottom by bankrupt England. You said that was not true. The data supplying those figures coming from the IMF and the World bank. Using standard methods of calculations . Which I suggest you make yourself familiar with.It helps when you have to back up the drivel you post. Could you tell me, and no you have not answered how those figures are wrong. It is a very simple question. You are just not going to, as you go in the huff. In another bizarre attempt to weasel out. Rather than admit you are 100% plain wrong on all accounts. When in a hole stop digging. www.gov.scot/publications/foi-19-02227/ |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 18:30:53 GMT
No, you didn’t get this nonsense from me on the old forum. I refused to engage with you on the old forum because it was a complete waste of time and energy doing so for the reasons I explained back then. I am trying to give it another go as we are on a new forum but, frankly, the quality of your posts and your thinking hasn’t improved so I am not sure how much longer I can continue to do so.
I havent laughed so hard happy since you told me scotland wasnt allowed to leave the onion.
You dont want to engage with jaydee because he tells you the truth and rubbishes your claims?
I have absolutely no idea what his problem is. What ever it is. It is beyond pathetic. The ego is dented. |
|
