|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 9:16:25 GMT
Yes I have what? If you mean that I have said that I believe that the new GB parliament was a continuation of the old English one then that is clearly untrue. Indeed, I have expressly stated otherwise in my previous post, immediately after the sentence that you quote above although, for some reason that is beyond me, you have chosen to exclude that from your post.
I don’t know if it says anywhere that the new GB parliament (NB - not the UK parliament as you say above, the UK didn’t come into being until almost a century later) was to inherit all of the characteristics of the old English parliament. Perhaps this was addressed in side documents or such like but it is not mentioned in the Acts of Union nor in the earlier Articles of Union. However, that is exactly what happened nonetheless, apparently without any objection or challenge either back then or since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 9:27:33 GMT
. Perhaps this was addressed in side documents or such like but it is not mentioned in the Acts of Union nor in the earlier Articles of Union, but that is exactly what happened nonetheless, apparently without any objection or challenge either back then or since then. So once again you can't prove something you earlier implied? Well what a surprised happy. prove it?. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 9:45:00 GMT
What are you talking about? I never implied anything of the kind earlier and I certainly didn’t expressly say so.
And I see that you have already fallen back into your normal desperate playground level last line of defence “prove it” mode. It normally takes a bit longer to get you to that stage. That’s as close as anyone can ever get to an expression of acceptance from you so I will take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 9:50:45 GMT
What are you talking about? I never implied that the new GB parliament was a continuation of the old English parliament but expressly stated that I do not believe that it was. Then how can you imply the concept of Scottish sovereignty isn't a part of it? two words....prove it ,.........and it has happy jack in a total fluster after his repeated waffling . It's normal forum etiquette happy , you make a claim , however daft or outrageous , and you prove it. If you can't , its you who has egg on his face. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 10:04:58 GMT
What has one got to do with the other?
Scottish sovereignty might be a concept and it was a historical actuality prior to 1707 but, as Scotland is no longer sovereign, it is not currently a reality.
I am not in the least bit flustered (as we have previously established, you are not good enough nor smart enough to fluster me, Thomas - and it diminishes you if that is your objective) and I am not making a claim but stating the glaringly obvious i.e. the new GB parliament adopted the characteristics of the old English parliament. We only have switch on our tvs and watch proceedings from Westminster to see that these characteristics are still on display more than 3 centuries later.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 10:34:54 GMT
I am not in the least bit flustered (as we have previously established, you are not good enough nor smart enough to fluster me, Thomas - and it diminishes you if that is your objective) and I am not making a claim but stating the glaringly obvious i.e. the new GB parliament adopted the characteristics of the old English parliament. We only have switch on our tvs and watch proceedings from Westminster to see that these characteristics are still on display more than 3 centuries later. We can se the same inept tactics of you unionists time and agin , no matter the forum , its the same old innuendo , bullshit , semantics , diversions and puerile attempts at denigration. I bow to your superior magnificence happy , and I truly am not worthy. How is it glaringly obvious regarding the point under discussion? here we go again with unionists, he said she said time. I refer you back to post 4 in the thread , from Ripley , your puerile attempts to reply in post 5 and 6 , and my reply to your rubbish in post 7 onwards. You are simultaneously trying to argue( to counter morays point about scotland being a captive) that the 1707 parliament was a new parliament , while to counter ripleys question , that it was somehow a continuation of the old English parliament in that parliament is sovereign , and holds higher authority over the Scottish peoples sovereignty. prove it? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 10:37:09 GMT
What has one got to do with the other? Scottish sovereignty might be a concept and it was a historical actuality prior to 1707 but, as Scotland is no longer sovereign, it is not currently a reality. prove it? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 10:45:09 GMT
Prove that Scotland is not sovereign? If you are able to bring anything remotely adult to the discussion and if I feel so inclined then I might engage with you further on this but until then I will leave you to indulge yourself in your inane behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 10:55:06 GMT
I am not in the least bit flustered (as we have previously established, you are not good enough nor smart enough to fluster me, Thomas - and it diminishes you if that is your objective) and I am not making a claim but stating the glaringly obvious i.e. the new GB parliament adopted the characteristics of the old English parliament. We only have switch on our tvs and watch proceedings from Westminster to see that these characteristics are still on display more than 3 centuries later. We can se the same inept tactics of you unionists time and agin , no matter the forum , its the same old innuendo , bullshit , semantics , diversions and puerile attempts at denigration. I bow to your superior magnificence happy , and I truly am not worthy. How is it glaringly obvious regarding the point under discussion? here we go again with unionists, he said she said time. I refer you back to post 4 in the thread , from Ripley , your puerile attempts to reply in post 5 and 6 , and my reply to your rubbish in post 7 onwards. You are simultaneously trying to argue( to counter morays point about scotland being a captive) that the 1707 parliament was a new parliament , while to counter ripleys question , that it was somehow a continuation of the old English parliament in that parliament is sovereign , and holds higher authority over the Scottish peoples sovereignty. prove it? I will ignore your usual childish nonsense here, Thomas because I am an adult and therefore try to behave as an adult. it is glaringly obvious not least because the Westminster parliament still displays the characteristics of the old English parliament more than 300 years later. I am not trying to do, and did not do, as you claim in respect of morayloon’s point nor did I say, and nor am I saying, what you accuse me of saying in response to Ripley. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 11:03:31 GMT
We can se the same inept tactics of you unionists time and agin , no matter the forum , its the same old innuendo , bullshit , semantics , diversions and puerile attempts at denigration. I bow to your superior magnificence happy , and I truly am not worthy. How is it glaringly obvious regarding the point under discussion? here we go again with unionists, he said she said time. I refer you back to post 4 in the thread , from Ripley , your puerile attempts to reply in post 5 and 6 , and my reply to your rubbish in post 7 onwards. You are simultaneously trying to argue( to counter morays point about scotland being a captive) that the 1707 parliament was a new parliament , while to counter ripleys question , that it was somehow a continuation of the old English parliament in that parliament is sovereign , and holds higher authority over the Scottish peoples sovereignty. prove it? I will ignore your usual childish nonsense here, Thomas because I am an adult and therefore try to behave as an adult. Thankyou teacher. Your maturity shames me . so in other words, you can't yet again prove your latest `implications` to Ripley on this thread as we have seen countless times over the years on this and the old forum to many members regarding your wild insinuations about scotland? Why am I not surprised. As ever , we see happyjacks unionist Wishes about scotland come up against the cold light of day when asked to prove his claims , and we are left empty handed as per normal. When you make a claim , it's not childish to ask for proof of your claim. Only a complete fucking baboon goes not a political discussion forum unable to back up what he is implying. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 11:06:44 GMT
Prove that Scotland is not sovereign? I didnt ask you to prove scotland is sovereign. Re read the thread , and try and understand what is being written without throwing in yet more lame diversions. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 11:11:13 GMT
No, there are “ in no other words” about it despite your attempts to fabricate something here. I am insinuating nothing, wild or otherwise, about Scotland and I have no particular wishes one way or the other, despite what you desperately wish to attribute to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 11:17:23 GMT
No, there are “ in no other words” about it despite your attempts to fabricate something here. I am insinuating nothing, wild or otherwise, about Scotland and I have no particular wishes one way or the other, despite what you desperately wish to attribute to me. read the thread. I gave you a synopsis of the run up to your lame intervention , reading what Ripley said , and your wild unprovable claims about the Scottish peoples sovereignty. Yet again , when asked to prove what you have written , you go on to fill the thread with bullshit and innuendo and numerous diversions. Is the current uk parliament a continuation of the old English parliament in practice , with the name plaque merely changed , in which mroayloon is correct about us being held prisoner by a foreign parliament via some shotgun marriage, or was it a new parliament as lord copper said in his famous 1953 ruling which inherited both English and Scottish constitutional practices in which case the uk parliament cannot be sovereign over the Scottish people ? Which is it? It can t be both? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 11:21:10 GMT
Prove that Scotland is not sovereign? I didnt ask you to prove scotland is sovereign. Re read the thread , and try and understand what is being written without throwing in yet more lame diversions. I said that “Scottish sovereignty might be a concept and it was a historical actuality prior to 1707 but, as Scotland is no longer sovereign, it is not currently a reality” and you asked me to prove it. If you were not asking me to prove that Scotland is not sovereign then what part of this are you asking me to prove? You, yourself, have spoken about the concept of Scottish sovereignty, I presume that you agree that Scottish sovereignty was a historical reality prior to 1707, and the reinstatement of Scotland’s sovereignty is surely what independence is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 11:23:00 GMT
I didnt ask you to prove scotland is sovereign. Re read the thread , and try and understand what is being written without throwing in yet more lame diversions. I said that “Scottish sovereignty might be a concept and it was a historical actuality prior to 1707 but, as Scotland is no longer sovereign, it is not currently a reality” and you asked me to prove it. you did. I asked you to prove the Scottish peoples sovereignty is no longer a current reality. Over to you? |
|
