Discussion:
Prince Harry -- Real Brit -- Off To Iraq
(too old to reply)
Vince
2007-03-01 15:52:31 UTC
Permalink
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by
one they joined the United States. But you can see that they
still have many of the attributes of countries; the power to
execute, or not; the power to tax, and their own separate legal
systems - not unlike Scotland and England.. The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan
a' Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not
necessarily those of The Highlander.
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil
War settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate
countries, once and for all. The idea of them being separate
nations came about only when the Southern states looked for an
excuse to leave a union they had voluntarily joined. Not to
mention places like Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and Texas that had been admitted
under the Constitution, and had never been "separate"/
actually its a bit more complicated than that.
The Treaty of Paris called them sovereign states by name, noting
that they were "united" in some unspecified form
Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United
States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina
and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he
treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and
successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety,
and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
This reflected the 1781 articles of confederation
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is
not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States,
in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm
league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare,
binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered
to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of
religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
Our constitutional theory is that the states were sovereign at that
time , but that the people in the United states created the
nation.
So states never "joined" the United States as states. The
inhabitants of the 13 original colonies that had achieved
sovereignty created the "United States of America" and allocated
sovereignty between the former colonies and the Federal government.
Vince
Where does that leave, say, Florida, which was bought later? Not to
mention Louisiana, Arkansas.
They are admitted to the United states by congress , on an equal basis
with all other states


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
221 U.S. 559
Coyle v. Smith


"The power of Congress in respect to the admission of new States is
found in the third section of the fourth Article of the Constitution.
That provision is that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into
this Union." The only expressed restriction upon this power is that no
new State shall be formed within the jurisdiction of any other State,
nor by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without
the consent of such States, as well as of the Congress.

But what is this power? It is not to admit political organizations
which are less or greater, or different in dignity or power, from those
political entities which constitute the Union. It is, as strongly put by
counsel, a "power to admit States."

The definition of "a State" is found in the powers possessed by the
original States which adopted the Constitution, a definition emphasized
by the terms employed in all subsequent acts of Congress admitting new
States into the Union. The first two States admitted into the Union were
the States of Vermont and Kentucky, one as of March 4, 1791, and the
other as of June 1, 1792. No terms or conditions were exacted from
either. Each act declares that the State is admitted "as a new and
entire member of the United States of America." 1 Stat. 189, 191.
Emphatic and significant as is the phrase admitted as "an entire
member," even stronger was the declaration upon the admission in 1796 of
Tennessee, as the third new State, it being declared to be "one of the
United States of America," "on an equal footing with the original States
in all respects whatsoever," phraseology which has ever since been
substantially followed in admission acts, concluding with the Oklahoma
act, which declares that Oklahoma shall be admitted "on an equal footing
with the original States."

The power is to admit "new States into this Union."

"This Union" was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and
authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself. To maintain
otherwise would be to say that the Union, through the power of Congress
to admit new States, might come to be a union of States unequal in
power, as including States whose powers were restricted only by the
Constitution, with others whose powers had been further restricted by an
act of Congress accepted as a condition of admission. Thus, it would
result, first, that the powers of Congress would not be defined by the
Constitution alone, but in respect to new States, enlarged or restricted
by the conditions imposed upon new States by its own legislation
admitting them into the Union; and, second, that such new States might
not exercise all of the powers which had not been delegated by the
Constitution, but only such as had not been further bargained away as
conditions of admission.....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0221_0559_ZO.html


Vince
TMOliver
2007-03-01 16:07:18 UTC
Permalink
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
While James may have spoken English with a broad accent, his family tree
certainly presents him as diluted Scots, at best.
Not counting unlicensed and unregistered wick-dipping to confuse the
issue among the issue, the Stewarts' "Royal Blood" looks to be mostly
admixture from furriners, while the family lineage itself had only
recently risen above the madding crowd of petty and provincial Scots
"nobility".
In the long run, I suppose James could claim to be more of a Scot, than
could George I validate his "Englishness".
TMO
you are incorrect
Walter Stewart was the son in law of Robert the Bruce
His son became Robert the II of Scotland in 1390
there is a direct line of descent to James VI
and no other family had a claim to the Stuart throne
All sorts of Scots nobles, powerful and insignificant, had as supportable a
claim to the Kingship of the Scots as did a family of modest antecedents who
apparently had been nothing more than the family name implies to earlier
Scottish Kings. There was nothing magic about the Stuarts/Stewarts. Pick
out any one ofa half dozen other families, and any of them could make as
good or better historical case.
His mother was Mary Queen of Scots.
Her "hold" on the monarchy was little more than "at the sufference" of
others, and certainly her "royal blood" proved no benefit when she was no
longer "necessary: asa symbolic but powerless occupant of the throne. The
guys in charge didn't hesitate to run her off when the no longer needed her,
anda malleable and manipulatable babe seemed a better choice than selecting
and elevating one of themselves. James became the King of Scots because he
was no threat and could be managed.

As a child, his "bloodline" claim to the throne was worth little more than
as a focus for the support of a small group of nobles who could easily have
produced another claimant. That he survived to become monarch of two
kingdoms rested on little more than the tacit approval on the part of the
not so gentle practitioner of Realpolitik "South of the Border". She
required an heir, and a Protestant Scotland not affilaied with the French
was preferable to the alternative and certainly not worth a bloody and
likely unsuccessful military adventure (given the general lack of success of
Elizabeth's land forces).

Don't strive so hard to achieve to perpetrate obvious error.

He was a direct descendant, certainly, but in a family tree in which there
had been (a) a big dose of Norse added to the postPict population and (b) a
great admixture of non-Scots Normans after 1100 or so. Then you've a couple
of French doses along the way plus at least one English grandmother. Even
the Welsh weigh in. James Stuart/Stewart is no more a "pure" Scot than
George I was English, Carlota Belgian or the Napoleonic-era Romanovs "pure"
Russians.. That's the way with monarchies, having to marry "out of
towners", lest local alliances create rivals with substantial claims of the
blood (on the record, a real problem for more than one English King).

TMO
Vince
2007-03-01 16:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their
time fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally
arranged by inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to
also be the King of England. The combined kingdom became known
as Great Briton.
While James may have spoken English with a broad accent, his
family tree certainly presents him as diluted Scots, at best.
Not counting unlicensed and unregistered wick-dipping to confuse
the issue among the issue, the Stewarts' "Royal Blood" looks to
be mostly admixture from furriners, while the family lineage
itself had only recently risen above the madding crowd of petty
and provincial Scots "nobility".
In the long run, I suppose James could claim to be more of a
Scot, than could George I validate his "Englishness".
TMO
you are incorrect
Walter Stewart was the son in law of Robert the Bruce
His son became Robert the II of Scotland in 1390
there is a direct line of descent to James VI and no other family
had a claim to the Stuart throne
All sorts of Scots nobles, powerful and insignificant, had as
supportable a claim to the Kingship of the Scots as did a family of
modest antecedents who apparently had been nothing more than the
family name implies to earlier Scottish Kings. There was nothing
magic about the Stuarts/Stewarts. Pick out any one ofa half dozen
other families, and any of them could make as good or better
historical case.
This is just silly. Robert the Bruce may have had a disputed claim to
the crown, but he clearly vanquished all rivals both by homicide and in
battle.
He forced England to recognize both his crown and his country

"Isabel and Mortimer agreed in the treaty that they in the name of young
Edward III "renounced all pretensions to sovereignty" to Scotland; and
Joanna (six years of age), sister of Edward III, was promised in
marriage to David (four years of age), son of Robert Bruce. In the
quitclaim of Edward III of 1328, one can see the treaty mentioned: The
Scottish Borders set by Alexander III "shall remain for ever to the
eminent prince Lord Robert, by the grace of God the illustrious king of
Scots, our ally and dearest friend, and to his heirs and successors,
divided in all things from the realm of England, entire, free, and quit,
without any subjection, servitude, claim, or demand.""


Bruce established a dynasty which came to be named Stuart after his son
in law.
Post by TMOliver
His mother was Mary Queen of Scots.
Her "hold" on the monarchy was little more than "at the sufference"
of others, and certainly her "royal blood" proved no benefit when she
was no longer "necessary: asa symbolic but powerless occupant of the
throne. The guys in charge didn't hesitate to run her off when the
no longer needed her, anda malleable and manipulatable babe seemed a
better choice than selecting and elevating one of themselves. James
became the King of Scots because he was no threat and could be
managed.
As a child, his "bloodline" claim to the throne was worth little more
than as a focus for the support of a small group of nobles who could
easily have produced another claimant. That he survived to become
monarch of two kingdoms rested on little more than the tacit approval
on the part of the not so gentle practitioner of Realpolitik "South
of the Border". She required an heir, and a Protestant Scotland not
affilaied with the French was preferable to the alternative and
certainly not worth a bloody and likely unsuccessful military
adventure (given the general lack of success of Elizabeth's land
forces).
Don't strive so hard to achieve to perpetrate obvious error.
He was a direct descendant, certainly, but in a family tree in which
there had been (a) a big dose of Norse added to the postPict
population and (b) a great admixture of non-Scots Normans after 1100
or so. Then you've a couple of French doses along the way plus at
least one English grandmother. Even the Welsh weigh in. James
Stuart/Stewart is no more a "pure" Scot than George I was English,
Carlota Belgian or the Napoleonic-era Romanovs "pure" Russians..
That's the way with monarchies, having to marry "out of towners",
lest local alliances create rivals with substantial claims of the
blood (on the record, a real problem for more than one English King).
Blood purity is simply not an issue. the issue is the legitimacy of the
dynasty.

you claimed

"while the family lineage itself had only recently risen above the
madding crowd of petty and provincial Scots "nobility"."

This is simply false. The Stuarts were an unbroken dynastic line from
Robert the Bruce

No one could challenge that claim.


Vince
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:19:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:07:18 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
While James may have spoken English with a broad accent, his family tree
certainly presents him as diluted Scots, at best.
Not counting unlicensed and unregistered wick-dipping to confuse the
issue among the issue, the Stewarts' "Royal Blood" looks to be mostly
admixture from furriners, while the family lineage itself had only
recently risen above the madding crowd of petty and provincial Scots
"nobility".
In the long run, I suppose James could claim to be more of a Scot, than
could George I validate his "Englishness".
TMO
you are incorrect
Walter Stewart was the son in law of Robert the Bruce
His son became Robert the II of Scotland in 1390
there is a direct line of descent to James VI
and no other family had a claim to the Stuart throne
All sorts of Scots nobles, powerful and insignificant, had as supportable a
claim to the Kingship of the Scots as did a family of modest antecedents who
apparently had been nothing more than the family name implies to earlier
Scottish Kings. There was nothing magic about the Stuarts/Stewarts. Pick
out any one ofa half dozen other families, and any of them could make as
good or better historical case.
His mother was Mary Queen of Scots.
Her "hold" on the monarchy was little more than "at the sufference" of
others, and certainly her "royal blood" proved no benefit when she was no
longer "necessary: asa symbolic but powerless occupant of the throne. The
guys in charge didn't hesitate to run her off when the no longer needed her,
anda malleable and manipulatable babe seemed a better choice than selecting
and elevating one of themselves. James became the King of Scots because he
was no threat and could be managed.
As a child, his "bloodline" claim to the throne was worth little more than
as a focus for the support of a small group of nobles who could easily have
produced another claimant. That he survived to become monarch of two
kingdoms rested on little more than the tacit approval on the part of the
not so gentle practitioner of Realpolitik "South of the Border". She
required an heir, and a Protestant Scotland not affilaied with the French
was preferable to the alternative and certainly not worth a bloody and
likely unsuccessful military adventure (given the general lack of success of
Elizabeth's land forces).
Don't strive so hard to achieve to perpetrate obvious error.
He was a direct descendant, certainly, but in a family tree in which there
had been (a) a big dose of Norse added to the postPict population and (b) a
great admixture of non-Scots Normans after 1100 or so. Then you've a couple
of French doses along the way plus at least one English grandmother. Even
the Welsh weigh in. James Stuart/Stewart is no more a "pure" Scot than
George I was English, Carlota Belgian or the Napoleonic-era Romanovs "pure"
Russians.. That's the way with monarchies, having to marry "out of
towners", lest local alliances create rivals with substantial claims of the
blood (on the record, a real problem for more than one English King).
TMO
Well, we seem to have managed somehow.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
TMOliver
2007-03-01 16:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.

TMO
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-01 16:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
I have seen several pictures of U.S. troops in daylight frisking
Iraqis wearing coats. The traditional layered garments of the Arabs,
both male and female, could well hide a belt of Nobel's Finest.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 07:52:18 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 08:55:54 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?

THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.

THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?

In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
TMOliver
2007-03-02 19:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.

Have you naught but shit for brains???????????

I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch. Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F

...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.

It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.

Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....

TMO
Bryn
2007-03-02 21:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.
Have you naught but shit for brains???????????
I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch. Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F
...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.
It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.
Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....
TMO
You live in WACO?


I should have known.....
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.

Bashõ
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-02 22:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryn
Post by TMOliver
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.
Have you naught but shit for brains???????????
I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch. Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F
...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.
It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.
Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....
TMO
You live in WACO?
Someone has to!
Post by Bryn
I should have known.....
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 22:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Bryn
Post by TMOliver
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.
Have you naught but shit for brains???????????
I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch. Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F
...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.
It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.
Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....
TMO
You live in WACO?
Someone has to!
what a cruel rule
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-02 23:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Bryn
Post by TMOliver
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.
Have you naught but shit for brains???????????
I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch. Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F
...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.
It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.
Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....
TMO
You live in WACO?
Someone has to!
what a cruel rule
I don't make the rules, I inflict them on others.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
La N
2007-03-03 00:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Bryn
Post by TMOliver
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the
start
of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C.
If
the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it
was
9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking
ague
and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.
Have you naught but shit for brains???????????
I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch.
Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F
...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.
It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.
Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....
TMO
You live in WACO?
Someone has to!
what a cruel rule
I don't make the rules, I inflict them on others.
Speaking of rulers ....
Can you imagine how different things would be today if Queen Elizabeth had
accepted Idi Amin's offer to be King of Scotland? The mind boggles, I tell
ya!

- nilita
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 23:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryn
Post by TMOliver
Post by The Highlander
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
What's the matter with you?
THE SUMMER HIGH on our island is 55 Fahrenheit /12.78 Celcius.
THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OF THE YEAR! Do I need a bullhorn to get the
message through to you?
In the Outer Hebrides, it's a couple of degrees lower, because they
look straight out across the Atlantic, on the same latitude as Juneau,
Alaska... I don't think you actually know how far north Scotland is.
Yes, but I do know where the Gulf Stream runs, and have seen those few palm
trees South of Prestwick.
Have you naught but shit for brains???????????
I have certainly been in the Hebrides when the temperature was above 70F.
....And transited Pentland First under similar conditions, warm enough to
stand on the bridge wing in a khaki shirt. To claim that 55F is the year's
highest temp in the Hebrides or Shetlands is a bit of a stretch. Shucks,
I've been in Bodo when it was above 70F, not exactly toasty, but more
comfortable than your imagined (or more likely invented) 55F
...But when it comes to 9-10C/48-50F, whether we're in Vancouver, Stornoway
or up the Frio above Uvalde, I'm (along with most sensible folk) going to
wear a jacket or coat. On the other hand, I envision Highbinder, claiming
coatlessness, as the sort of Canuckistani famed in legend who only changes
his long johns after his annual April bath, and then into another pair of
woolies.
It was 9C here in Waco this AM, and I went off to the bank and PO (driving)
in a denim shirt-jac over a TShirt. Walking, because of the wind, I would
have wanted bit more. It's afternoon and due to top at 23C, and the
shirtjacket is already off.
Now, had I been in Vancouver or Scotland, where the Annual Drizzle Festival
takes up much of the calendar, I would have needed a waterproof.....
TMO
You live in WACO?
I should have known.....
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.
Bashõ
Is that where the expression, "He/she is whacko"?
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
William Hamblen
2007-03-01 19:57:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:21:34 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
The Scots did have the highest death rate among Commonwealth forces
during WWI: 26%. In that war the number of wounded ran about 3 or 4
times the number who died, making it easily believable that at some
point nearly every Scot who enlisted became a casualty.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Eric Stevens
2007-03-01 20:46:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:57:11 -0600, William Hamblen
Post by William Hamblen
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:21:34 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
The Scots did have the highest death rate among Commonwealth forces
during WWI: 26%. In that war the number of wounded ran about 3 or 4
times the number who died, making it easily believable that at some
point nearly every Scot who enlisted became a casualty.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm
contains some interesting statistics.



Eric Stevens
a.spencer3
2007-03-02 08:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:57:11 -0600, William Hamblen
Post by William Hamblen
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:21:34 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
The Scots did have the highest death rate among Commonwealth forces
during WWI: 26%. In that war the number of wounded ran about 3 or 4
times the number who died, making it easily believable that at some
point nearly every Scot who enlisted became a casualty.
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm
contains some interesting statistics.
Maybe, but he said:

"two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of WW1 died in the
trenches"

Surreyman
Bryn
2007-03-01 21:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hamblen
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:21:34 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
I suspect that the validity to the claim is owed to a certain perverseness
claimed by Highlander, not wearing a coat outside when it's 9-10C. If the
other Scots stood about the trenches of France and Belgium when it was 9C in
their shirtsleeves, they was taken by the epizootics, the quaking ague and
variety of respiratory ailments, combined with bullets and shells.
TMO
The Scots did have the highest death rate among Commonwealth forces
during WWI: 26%. In that war the number of wounded ran about 3 or 4
times the number who died, making it easily believable that at some
point nearly every Scot who enlisted became a casualty.
Damned second hand spirit shirts!
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.

Bashõ
allan connochie
2007-03-01 16:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Great Britain did not come into existence as a country with the crowning
of James, but with the Acts of Union in 1707
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707
Vince
Have a look at the history of the name.
The name existed. James personally used the name when talking about the two
kingdoms. However Great Britain did not actually exist as an actual entity
as Scotland and England remained two seperate independent nations until
1707. The British monarchs also often styled themselves Kings of France. It
didn't make it so.


Allan
allan connochie
2007-03-01 16:39:07 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
He's meaning that James was the Scot but it was Englishmen who
put
him
on
the English throne.
Allan
You can only imagine how confusing this is to your American
cousins.
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their
time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the
King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
Andrew Swallow
I thought it was the United Kingdum
Now you are bringing in Ireland. Another story.
Andrew Swallow
Err! No again!
The full title is, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern
Ireland",
so, "The UK", and, "The UK & NI", are two different things. Of course
we
also have, "Great Britain", and "Great Britain & Northern Ireland",
also
The British Isles. Not to mention the protectorates and
Principalities.
--
I always understood that it was "The United Kingdom of Great Britain
...PLUS
(Northern) Ireland". e.g. not uniting GB & Ireland?
Surreyman
A point of view _not_ supported by the Act of Union 1800: -
<Wikipedai>
The Act of Union 1800 merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of
Great
Britain (itself a merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of
Scotland under the Act of Union 1707) to create the United Kingdom of
Great
Britain and Ireland on 1 January 1801.
Prior to this act Ireland had been in personal union with England since
1541, when the Protestant Ascendancy dominating Irish Parliament passed
the
Crown of Ireland Act 1542, proclaiming King Henry VIII of England to be
King
of Ireland. Both Ireland and England had been in personal union with
Scotland since the Union of the Crowns in 1603.
</Wikipedai>
You will recall that the colonists fought their insurgency against Armies
fighting under the Union Flag of 1707 [Blue-White (Scotland) merged with
Red-White ( England) ] but by the time Nelson fought the combined fleets
off
Trafalgar it was the under the Union flag we know today. Nelson's fleet
was
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Cork (btw) was the
largest fleet base in the United Kingdom. Ireland was in union with
England's monarch since 1541.
--
Brian
OK - Ta!
The Act of Union between Scotland and England does go on about the United
Kingdom of Great Britain though. So it is a hazy one. In general use though
the UK means Northern Ireland too.

cheers

Allan
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-01 20:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
[snip]
He's meaning that James was the Scot but it was Englishmen who
put
him
on
the English throne.
Allan
You can only imagine how confusing this is to your American
cousins.
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their
time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the
King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
Andrew Swallow
I thought it was the United Kingdum
Now you are bringing in Ireland. Another story.
Andrew Swallow
Err! No again!
The full title is, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern
Ireland",
so, "The UK", and, "The UK & NI", are two different things. Of course
we
also have, "Great Britain", and "Great Britain & Northern Ireland",
also
The British Isles. Not to mention the protectorates and
Principalities.
--
I always understood that it was "The United Kingdom of Great Britain
...PLUS
(Northern) Ireland". e.g. not uniting GB & Ireland?
Surreyman
A point of view _not_ supported by the Act of Union 1800: -
<Wikipedai>
The Act of Union 1800 merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of
Great
Britain (itself a merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of
Scotland under the Act of Union 1707) to create the United Kingdom of
Great
Britain and Ireland on 1 January 1801.
Prior to this act Ireland had been in personal union with England since
1541, when the Protestant Ascendancy dominating Irish Parliament passed
the
Crown of Ireland Act 1542, proclaiming King Henry VIII of England to be
King
of Ireland. Both Ireland and England had been in personal union with
Scotland since the Union of the Crowns in 1603.
</Wikipedai>
You will recall that the colonists fought their insurgency against Armies
fighting under the Union Flag of 1707 [Blue-White (Scotland) merged with
Red-White ( England) ] but by the time Nelson fought the combined fleets
off
Trafalgar it was the under the Union flag we know today. Nelson's fleet
was
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Cork (btw) was the
largest fleet base in the United Kingdom. Ireland was in union with
England's monarch since 1541.
--
Brian
OK - Ta!
The Act of Union between Scotland and England does go on about the United
Kingdom of Great Britain though. So it is a hazy one. In general use
though the UK means Northern Ireland too.
cheers
Allan
No it does not. The correct designation is, "The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland". Thus Great Britain is but Scotland, Wales and
England.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
allan connochie
2007-03-02 11:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by allan connochie
The Act of Union between Scotland and England does go on about the United
Kingdom of Great Britain though. So it is a hazy one. In general use
though the UK means Northern Ireland too.
cheers
Allan
No it does not. The correct designation is, "The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland". Thus Great Britain is but Scotland, Wales
and England.
Where on earth do I say any different? You're baffling me this week. I never
said Northern Ireland was part of Great Britain.

What was being talked about was the usage of UK. Brian was right in that by
UK we mean GB&NI. However I was just pointing out that the treaty with
Ireland which formed the UKofGB&I was not actually the first time the term
UK was used. The 1707 Act of Union between Scotland and England refers to
the new entity as the United Kingdom of Great Britain several times.

Allan
The Highlander
2007-03-01 19:03:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:04:04 +0100, "Michael Kuettner"
<snip>
But the European royal families were all interlinked. George I could
trace family back through the Scottish line accurately to Kenneth
MacAlpin the first Scotti to become King of the Picts in the 9thC. His
mother was the daughter of Princess Elizabeth Stuart. Similarly he could
trace the English line back through to the 1st millenium AD.
Could you point me towards some documents from the 9th. century signed
by MacAlpin ? When he was signing as "king of the Picts" ?
Sadly, my knowledge of old documents from the British Isles is rather
poor.
I think you probably know that no such signed document exits. However in the
early Chronicles he was described as a Pictish king and the land he reigned
over was described as Pictavia. For example here is one quote
How early are those chronicles ?
A few hundred years after his reign, I guess.
"He and his next three successors - in turn his brother Donald, and his two
sons Constantine and Aed - were all called King of Picts when their deaths
were recorded in the near contemporary Annal of
Ulster....................from Scotland A New History by Michael Lynch"
Yabbut, with no contemporary documents or at least coins with "Rex pict"
on them, it looks like this claim is bogus.
Inventing a geneology was a custom in Europe since the times of the Romans
(Vergilius - Aeneas, eg).
Especially royal families were into that hobby: a shaky claim to the realm
or parts of it usually was one of the reasons.
It was seemingly in the reign of Donald II right at the end of the 9thC when
the Pictish kings started to be called "ri Alban" ie King of Alba.
Are there some coin finds with "Rex Pictorum" or "Ri pictorum"
or whatever else the title was ?
Without any _contemporary_ evidence of MacAlpin really being the king of the
Picts, it's possible that it was a later "tall tale".
That was standard practice in Europe at that time (and earlier).
It doesn't seem so. All the evidence is that MacAlpin's mother was a
Pictish high-born, and as the Picts maintained a matriarchal society,
they accepted him as their king.
What evidence ?
My point was that all the evidence stems from later times.
MacAlpin might have been king of the Picts, or he might not have been
that.
Since no contemporary accounts exist, it's weak evidence.
We _know_ that Ramses II. was pharao of upper and lower Egypt.
We have plenty of contemporary evidence.
We _guess_ that MacAlpin was king of the Picts, because we have no
contemporary evidence.
Generally speaking, the oral histories of the Gaels are pretty
accurate.
"Was Brot ich ess' , des Lied ich sing'"
Translated : " Who pays the piper calls the tune."
We have an expression - Pìobaire an aona phuirt - a piper with one
tune. Sonmeone who knows nothing.
I think that's rather insulting. We may have had an oral culture, but
then we know how easy it is to lie in writing, as your fellow
Landsmann, the late A. Hitler showed us much
Despite the Celtic twilight nonsense, it is noteworthy that
most place names acted as an oral Baedecker's Guide, so that when
venturing into parts unknown, the names given to geographical features
tended to be descriptive, rather than fanciful, so you were forewarned
about what sort of country you would be travelling through, with names
like Plain of the Bogs, The Road of Flagstones or the Hillside of
Pines, mixed with the invariable memorable incidents, such as Field of
the Shirts; (Blar-Na-Leine) fought on 3 July, 1544 between the
Frasers, the MacDonalds and the Camerons.
Yes, but place-names have nothing to do with historical facts.
MacAlpin didn't come from the Alps ;-)
So you haven't heard of the Celtic Hallstatt and La Tene cultures in
Austria?

The Gaelic name for Scotland is Alba, pronounced AHL-AH-PA, meaning
high mountain pasture in old Gaelic. The name MacAlpin is derived from
that. There are two other Albas, one in Italy, one in Spain - both
heavily settled by Celts, who defeated Rome in battle, and a great
deal of interest in why Albania is called Albania.
Place-names are a nice way to fill in some historical details (like
the age of the village), since they tend to be conservative.
But some of the names can't be explained anymore; like "Wien"
from "Vindobona", a Roman coinage. It seems to refer to a Celtic
river god(dess).
Well, as the Celts occupied a large part of Austria, why would you be
surprised?
It was a hot day and the
clansmen stripped to the waist, leaving their shirts lying behind
them.
Nonsense !
They just wanted to save the pennies for cleaning their shirts !
True Scots to a man, IOW.
<snip>
Highland folk medicine is of interest because the Highlanders knew a
great deal about treating wounds, as well as using foxgloves
(digitalis) to treat people with heart problems and eating blueberries
to prevent what we now call Alzheimers. .
Wrong conclusion.
People eat the fruits that are easily available. Connections between
blueberries and Alzheimer weren't detected by Scots.
Sometimes blind luck rules.
Could you be a little more specific about the dates ?
When was digitalis used in Scotland to cure heart-problems ?
(This thread is cross-posted, and I'm reading shm).
Since time immeroial. I was taught the recipe for making it as a
child. I'll also thank you to stop mocking our culture; it was a
greaty deal more successful in its wars than youre ever was, In fact,
if Ghenghis Khan hadn't died unexpectedly, Vienna would have been a
Mongol possession.
You faith in the written word is touchingly naive.
The primary treatment for a serious wound was to urinate on it thereby
sterilizing it, and if possible, i.e. being close to any bush,
stuffing it with masses of spiderweb, which made the wound heal far
faster than leaving it merely bandaged.
Er, what ?
_Visible_ spiderweb is visible because there's lots of dirt on it.
God spoare me, it's like instructing a child!
It rains a lot in Scotland, and after each shower, spider's webs are
easily seen because the water drips from them like silver beads among
the bushes.
This caught the attention of John Hopkins Univerity in the States and
is now a recommended treatment for fast healing - after being
thoroughly sterilized, of course. My understanding is that the
spiderweb encourages the growth of new tissue at a faster rate and
also leaves less scarring. Scars in Highland culture were not
associated with bravery or brutality, but more with inferior fighting
skills or just bad luck. A much more realistic appraisal in my
opinion.
It would be easier if you could put some dates to your statements.
Example : "Highland culture". Which time-frame ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Go to a library and read a book on the subject. We are not here to
drive out ignorance, we are here to discuss matters of interest to
ourselves.
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Renia
2007-03-01 22:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
The Gaelic name for Scotland is Alba, pronounced AHL-AH-PA, meaning
high mountain pasture in old Gaelic. The name MacAlpin is derived from
that. There are two other Albas, one in Italy, one in Spain - both
heavily settled by Celts, who defeated Rome in battle, and a great
deal of interest in why Albania is called Albania.
There is also Albi near Toulouse, in France, whatever relevance that
might have.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 06:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
The Gaelic name for Scotland is Alba, pronounced AHL-AH-PA, meaning
high mountain pasture in old Gaelic. The name MacAlpin is derived from
that. There are two other Albas, one in Italy, one in Spain - both
heavily settled by Celts, who defeated Rome in battle, and a great
deal of interest in why Albania is called Albania.
There is also Albi near Toulouse, in France, whatever relevance that
might have.
Coincidence?

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-01 19:06:53 UTC
Permalink
"> The central legal aparatus of the United States can overule the state
judiciary but the central judical authority in London has no authority
over
the Scotish legal system at all.
At all?
Could the Scots unilaterally re-introduce the death penalty, for
instance?
Don't know - just asking.
Well they could try.
However the legal powers of the Jock wind factory are strictly limited at
the moment on the grounds that, rather than make the death penalty legal
they'd make recruiting for HM forces illegal.
The Scottish Assembly is somewhat left of center...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
What they have done is tell England that Scotland is NOT going to have any
more UK nuclear power stations on Scottish soil and they do indeed have such
powers. Even worse for the English is that the local councils have the final
say on granting planning permission. So, even if Scottish NuLabour does its
usual cave in to Westminster, the SNP, Tory and Lib/Dem controlled councils
will stop the plans being passed. As might some of the Labour controlled
councils that a just a bit more left wing than Tony's lot.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
William Black
2007-03-02 07:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
What they have done is tell England that Scotland is NOT going to have any
more UK nuclear power stations on Scottish soil and they do indeed have
such powers. Even worse for the English is that the local councils have
the final say on granting planning permission. So, even if Scottish
NuLabour does its usual cave in to Westminster, the SNP, Tory and Lib/Dem
controlled councils will stop the plans being passed. As might some of the
Labour controlled councils that a just a bit more left wing than Tony's
lot.
Councils in the UK do NOT have the final say about anything relating to
planning.

That right is invariably reserved for the responsible minister. They don't
even have to have a public inquiry.

If the Deputy prime Minister is prepard to overrule every local authority
from Parish Council to County Council to allow a few houses to be built then
he's certainly going to let HMG build a nuclear power station...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 12:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers.
What they have done is tell England that Scotland is NOT going to have
any more UK nuclear power stations on Scottish soil and they do indeed
have such powers. Even worse for the English is that the local councils
have the final say on granting planning permission. So, even if Scottish
NuLabour does its usual cave in to Westminster, the SNP, Tory and Lib/Dem
controlled councils will stop the plans being passed. As might some of
the Labour controlled councils that a just a bit more left wing than
Tony's lot.
Councils in the UK do NOT have the final say about anything relating to
planning.
That right is invariably reserved for the responsible minister. They
don't even have to have a public inquiry.
If the Deputy prime Minister is prepard to overrule every local authority
from Parish Council to County Council to allow a few houses to be built
then he's certainly going to let HMG build a nuclear power station...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
just how long do you think ANY minister or party would last if it started
to, wholesale, overrule the local ruling parties?
Remember that it is from within those local constituencies of the Labour
Party that the Scottish Leader of the Labour party is elected and the leader
can, witness McLeish, soon be dispatched.
My own feelings about McConnell is that his Labour leadership jaikit hings
on a gae shooglie caddle, (leadership jacket hangs of a very loose nail).
Whether that nail is nudged by the SNP at the next Scottish election or by
the panicking Scottish Labour party is a rather moot point. The fact is
McConnell is becoming a bit of a liability for Scottish Labour. Non-party
labour former voters are deserting the party ship in droves just now yet
McConnell is so conscious by his absence at public debates that they cannot
fail to notice. Witness the political TV show this week with every other
party leader on the platform debating why Jack will not face Salmond in
public debate. Witness also Jack's sheer panic reactions and tirades against
the SNP that usually have little substance as he spouts his own ideas as to
what the SNP policies are and what they will achieve. 99% of the time his
idea of what are SNP policy is wrong and in the other 1% his claims are
shown to be fraudulent. Like this mornings claim that Labour have stopped
child poverty in Scotland on the same morning that the cross-party CPAG,
(Child Poverty Action Group), publish figures showing there are 900,000
people living in poverty in Scotland and that includes 240,000 children. The
man is plainly a liar, (now there's a surprise). Then he claims Scotland
would be poorer as an independent nation yet when the poorest area of the UK
with the fewest natural resources, (Southern Ireland), became independent it
became the second richest member of the EU and several places above the UK.
Are you and he actually attempting to tell we Scots that we are less able
than the Irish Republic to govern ourselves? There are several World Powers
who could tell you otherwise and that includes the UK's cabinet.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
William Black
2007-03-02 12:58:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
just how long do you think ANY minister or party would last if it started
to, wholesale, overrule the local ruling parties?
Remember that it is from within those local constituencies of the Labour
Party that the Scottish Leader of the Labour party is elected and the
leader can, witness McLeish, soon be dispatched.
The reality is that planning apeals are allowed by the central government in
almost casual disregard of any local political feeling.

Party discipline is such that local party officials are molified by a
telephone call from a grandee in London, after all, they might not get
their OBEs if they kick too hard...


. The fact is
Post by Robert Peffers.
McConnell is becoming a bit of a liability for Scottish Labour.
The fact is that any decent Scottish politician with any ability has headed
for Westminster years ago and what you've gotleft is a gang of no-hopers who
can't get past a selection committee for a Westminster seat.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Bryn
2007-03-02 18:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Robert Peffers.
What they have done is tell England that Scotland is NOT going to have any
more UK nuclear power stations on Scottish soil and they do indeed have
such powers. Even worse for the English is that the local councils have
the final say on granting planning permission. So, even if Scottish
NuLabour does its usual cave in to Westminster, the SNP, Tory and Lib/Dem
controlled councils will stop the plans being passed. As might some of the
Labour controlled councils that a just a bit more left wing than Tony's
lot.
Councils in the UK do NOT have the final say about anything relating to
planning.
That right is invariably reserved for the responsible minister. They don't
even have to have a public inquiry.
If the Deputy prime Minister is prepard to overrule every local authority
from Parish Council to County Council to allow a few houses to be built then
he's certainly going to let HMG build a nuclear power station...
Well that fat git will get what's coming, come the revolution...

Hear that? John ( the working class can kiss my arse) Prescott!

You're worst than that revolting Tony! Almost as bad as that hypocrite
Peter Hain...
</Keywords lying bastard neo-Tories/>
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.

Bashõ
D. Spencer Hines
2007-03-01 19:37:26 UTC
Permalink
No.

It was not Genghis Khan [Temujin] who died. [John Kerry, The Ignorant,
pronounces his name as "Jenjhis".]

It was Ogedei Khan [1186-1241], the third son of Genghis, who had succeeded
his father -- and who died suddenly.

<http://www.answers.com/topic/gedei-khan>

Genghis died in 1227.

DSH
I'll also thank you to stop mocking our culture; it was a
greaty deal more successful in its wars than youre ever was, In fact,
if Ghenghis Khan hadn't died unexpectedly, Vienna would have been a
Mongol possession.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 06:06:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:37:26 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
No.
It was not Genghis Khan [Temujin] who died. [John Kerry, The Ignorant,
pronounces his name as "Jenjhis".]
It was Ogedei Khan [1186-1241], the third son of Genghis, who had succeeded
his father -- and who died suddenly.
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gedei-khan>
Genghis died in 1227.
DSH
Thank you for the correction. It's been a long time since I read a
history of that period.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I'll also thank you to stop mocking our culture; it was a
greaty deal more successful in its wars than youre ever was, In fact,
if Ghenghis Khan hadn't died unexpectedly, Vienna would have been a
Mongol possession.
The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-03-02 07:36:42 UTC
Permalink
You're quite welcome.

DSH
Post by The Highlander
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:37:26 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
No.
It was not Genghis Khan [Temujin] who died. [John Kerry, The Ignorant,
pronounces his name as "Jenjhis".]
It was Ogedei Khan [1186-1241], the third son of Genghis, who had
succeeded his father -- and who died suddenly.
<http://www.answers.com/topic/gedei-khan>
Genghis died in 1227.
DSH
Thank you for the correction. It's been a long time since I read a
history of that period.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I'll also thank you to stop mocking our culture; it was a
greaty deal more successful in its wars than youre ever was, In fact,
if Ghenghis Khan hadn't died unexpectedly, Vienna would have been a
Mongol possession.
William Hamblen
2007-03-01 19:40:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:10:25 +0530, "William Black"
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
You raise an interesting point.
The central legal aparatus of the United States can overule the state
judiciary but the central judical authority in London has no authority over
the Scotish legal system at all.
The federal courts have jurisdiction where the states ceded powers in
adopting the US constitution. Each state has its own constitution,
voted by the people. The Massachusetts constitution, for example,
predates the US constitution and Rhode Island used its royal charter
until the 1830s.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Eric Stevens
2007-03-01 19:43:15 UTC
Permalink
See E. Annie Proulx's _The Shipping News_ with Kevin Spacey, Dame Judi Dench
et al.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120824/
Own it - as I do most of Lasse Halstrom's movies.
You mean its a movie?
Eugene L Griessel
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
Eric Stevens
Eugene Griessel
2007-03-01 19:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Stevens
See E. Annie Proulx's _The Shipping News_ with Kevin Spacey, Dame Judi Dench
et al.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120824/
Own it - as I do most of Lasse Halstrom's movies.
You mean its a movie?
Yep - It's fairly different from Annie Proulx's book - they have taken
rather large liberties with the story but sort of retained the basic
idea.

Eugene L Griessel

History is a set of lies agreed upon by the Victor.
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-01 21:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Eric Stevens
See E. Annie Proulx's _The Shipping News_ with Kevin Spacey, Dame Judi Dench
et al.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120824/
Own it - as I do most of Lasse Halstrom's movies.
You mean its a movie?
Yep - It's fairly different from Annie Proulx's book - they have taken
rather large liberties with the story but sort of retained the basic
idea.
Eugene L Griessel
History is a set of lies agreed upon by the Victor.
Do the ashes get dumped down the outhouse hole in the movie? I've only
read the book.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Eugene Griessel
2007-03-01 22:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Do the ashes get dumped down the outhouse hole in the movie? I've only
read the book.
Yep - and Dame Judy, after dumping them, squats down and has a piddle
with a self-satisified smirk on her face.

Eugene L Griessel

It has been said that although God cannot alter the past, historians
can. It is perhaps because they can be useful to him in this respect
that he tolerates their existence.
- Samuel Butler
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-01 22:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Do the ashes get dumped down the outhouse hole in the movie? I've only
read the book.
Yep - and Dame Judy, after dumping them, squats down and has a piddle
with a self-satisified smirk on her face.
That wasn't in the book, but it works.
Post by Eugene Griessel
Eugene L Griessel
It has been said that although God cannot alter the past, historians
can. It is perhaps because they can be useful to him in this respect
that he tolerates their existence.
- Samuel Butler
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
William Hamblen
2007-03-01 19:43:00 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 06:16:43 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Yes. KINGdom - we share a common monarchy and have a treaty of union to
share a parliament,(at the moment).
sorry no
its one Kingdom
Teh kingdom of scotland and the kingdom of england were merged
here is the text of the act
The problem here is the differning uses of the word 'country' itself.
People in the UK generally think of their kingdom being made up of various
countries and don't restrict the word 'country' to only current independent
members of the UN etc. We'd look on a country as being a much more permanent
thing than whatever the political situation of the day is. Hence here a
country can be an independent state or part of an independent state. Others
often use the word country in a more restricted sense. Hence an Englishman
is likely to view England as just as much a country as for instance Paraguay
is. It just happens to be part of a political union with other countries.
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Tennessee used to be part of North Carolina.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Nebulous
2007-03-01 19:57:48 UTC
Permalink
"Jack Linthicum" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:***@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...


Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/



So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?

It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.

"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"

Neb
TMOliver
2007-03-01 20:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized by
the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.

I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British Army
might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots enlistees
and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they swear an oath
too, England, Scotland or UK. If it's UK and a UK may not be dissolved,
pulling a Robert E. Lee would certainly comprise treason, a remedy that the
US didn't seek.
Bryn
2007-03-01 21:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized by
the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.
I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British Army
might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots enlistees
and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they swear an oath
too, England, Scotland or UK. If it's UK and a UK may not be dissolved,
pulling a Robert E. Lee would certainly comprise treason, a remedy that the
US didn't seek.
Good God man! It simple! They would compromise!
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.

Bashõ
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-01 23:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryn
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized by
the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.
I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British Army
might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots enlistees
and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they swear an oath
too, England, Scotland or UK. If it's UK and a UK may not be dissolved,
pulling a Robert E. Lee would certainly comprise treason, a remedy that the
US didn't seek.
Good God man! It simple! They would compromise!
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.
Bashõ
They would not need to worry about the sovereign as the monarch is both the
Queen of England and Queen of Scots. The monarch, though, would have a
quandary.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Nebulous
2007-03-01 22:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized
by the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.
I thought that was marriage!
Post by TMOliver
I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British
Army might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots
enlistees and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they
swear an oath too, England, Scotland or UK. If it's UK and a UK may not
be dissolved, pulling a Robert E. Lee would certainly comprise treason, a
remedy that the US didn't seek.
There is an expectation that it would be an agreeable separation. Much of
the current impetus comes from people in *ngland deciding they no longer
want us. Their newspapers were whipping up a frenzy of anti-Scottish
feeling, but it seems to have died down as the election approaches.

Neb
jJim McLaughlin
2007-03-01 22:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized by
the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
SNIPS

I can think of 13 that gave up as much "sovereignty" as Texas --

You might want to consider New Hampsire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecicut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania,
Maryand, Vugiia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

None of the 13 had "territorial status", whatever that may be, beore
'joining up'.

If Texas is a different kettle of fish, it isn't a unique kettle.
Hawai'i is the same kettle of fish as Texas.
TMOliver
2007-03-02 00:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jJim McLaughlin
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized
by the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states
held no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood,
and their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
SNIPS
I can think of 13 that gave up as much "sovereignty" as Texas --
You might want to consider New Hampsire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecicut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryand,
Vugiia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
None of the 13 had "territorial status", whatever that may be, beore
'joining up'.
If Texas is a different kettle of fish, it isn't a unique kettle. Hawai'i
is the same kettle of fish as Texas.
You've got a lot of learning to do.....

None of the 13 former colonies which entered the Confederacy were recognized
by the governments of foreign countries.

After the end of the Revolution, none had a standing military force which
fought under local (not Continental/Confederacy command) against a foreign
government.

Additionally, unlike the 13 original colonies and successive affiliates,
Texas retained its public lands (and later legally established ownership to
Tidelands based upon the original agreement), sovereign rights held by no
other state,

While the UK sent political emissaries to the Hawaiian Queen, I don't recall
any recognition and exchange of diplomats. Nobody else seems to have
recognized other than local de facto sovereign status for Hawaii's
government.

The once Embassy of France still stands in Austin, Texas and the diplomatic
incident arising over the death of the French Minister's hog makes
interesting reading in international relations. In London, the former
Embassy of the Republic is recognized by a plaque.

The Republic of Texas may not have lasted little more than a decade (while
Mexico's sovereignty over the place lasted no more than 15 or 13 years
depending on which date one recognizes for Mexican sovereignty's
establishment), but it's independent status was never doubted. The best of
the legends, the ability on its own right to divide into five states is but
urban legend, but makes a grand tale, and provides all sorts of opportunity
for young politicians to aspire to those extra 8 Senate seats.

Then there's the Emperor of Mexico (a crown claimed and apparently
recognized in some quarters abroad), Iturbide, a tragic figure, more
successful than Perkin Warbeck, but doomed to a brief rule and an
ignominious end. I guess these days only a handful of folks from California
or Texas may recall his moment upon the stage, but he seems to have made
less of an impression in New Mexico and Arizona.

TMO
Vince
2007-03-02 18:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Post by jJim McLaughlin
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized
by the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states
held no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood,
and their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
SNIPS
I can think of 13 that gave up as much "sovereignty" as Texas --
You might want to consider New Hampsire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecicut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryand,
Vugiia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
None of the 13 had "territorial status", whatever that may be, beore
'joining up'.
If Texas is a different kettle of fish, it isn't a unique kettle. Hawai'i
is the same kettle of fish as Texas.
You've got a lot of learning to do.....
None of the 13 former colonies which entered the Confederacy were recognized
by the governments of foreign countries.
Th language I quoted from the treaty of Paris does recognize them by name


Article 1

His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
Post by TMOliver
After the end of the Revolution, none had a standing military force which
fought under local (not Continental/Confederacy command) against a foreign
government.
Additionally, unlike the 13 original colonies and successive affiliates,
Texas retained its public lands (and later legally established ownership to
Tidelands based upon the original agreement), sovereign rights held by no
other state,
you are incorrect

the Texas tideland controversy was resolved against Texas as a matter of
law, but they prevailed politically as a matter of statute and politics

"It became a national issue, resulting in three Supreme Court decisions
against the states, three acts of Congress in favor of the states, two
presidential vetoes against the states, and a major issue in a
presidential campaign, before the states finally won the victory."

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/TT/mgt2.html
Post by TMOliver
While the UK sent political emissaries to the Hawaiian Queen, I don't recall
any recognition and exchange of diplomats. Nobody else seems to have
recognized other than local de facto sovereign status for Hawaii's
government.
Hawaii was clearly a sovereign state


Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the
independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete
diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into
treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce
and navigation...
UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html
Post by TMOliver
The once Embassy of France still stands in Austin, Texas and the diplomatic
incident arising over the death of the French Minister's hog makes
interesting reading in international relations. In London, the former
Embassy of the Republic is recognized by a plaque.
The Republic of Texas may not have lasted little more than a decade (while
Mexico's sovereignty over the place lasted no more than 15 or 13 years
depending on which date one recognizes for Mexican sovereignty's
establishment), but it's independent status was never doubted. The best of
the legends, the ability on its own right to divide into five states is but
urban legend, but makes a grand tale, and provides all sorts of opportunity
for young politicians to aspire to those extra 8 Senate seats.
Then there's the Emperor of Mexico (a crown claimed and apparently
recognized in some quarters abroad), Iturbide, a tragic figure, more
successful than Perkin Warbeck, but doomed to a brief rule and an
ignominious end. I guess these days only a handful of folks from California
or Texas may recall his moment upon the stage, but he seems to have made
less of an impression in New Mexico and Arizona.
That Texas was a republic and is a state is unquestioned, but not the issue

Vince
Vince
2007-03-02 19:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Vince wrote:

follow up on one point
Article 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz"

Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt)
adv. Abbr. viz.
That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or items.


"There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous electrical
system and broken windows.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet

17. The Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning
was in accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, viz
R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982] 1 All E R 587; R v
Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl Bridgewater" case). Mantell
LJ observed (at para 16, 1914H):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/hayter-1.htm

There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord Penzance would
not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three points were
defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one communicant; (2) Crucifix
upon the chancel screen; (3) the Stations of the Cross
http://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html


The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United States" to
be a "collection" rather an "organic entity"


Vince
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 19:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
follow up on one point
Article 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz"
Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt)
adv. Abbr. viz.
That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or items.
"There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous electrical
system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet
17. The Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning
was in accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, viz
R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982] 1 All E R 587; R v
Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl Bridgewater" case). Mantell
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord Penzance would
not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three points were
defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one communicant; (2) Crucifix
upon the chancel screen; (3) the Stations of the Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United States" to
be a "collection" rather an "organic entity"
Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as expressed in
the Declaration of Independence.

The name "United States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies,
no matter what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and the
United States, using different words for each "united".
Vince
2007-03-02 19:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
follow up on one point
Article 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz"
Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt)
adv. Abbr. viz.
That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or items.
"There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous electrical
system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet
17. The Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning
was in accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, viz
R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982] 1 All E R 587; R v
Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl Bridgewater" case). Mantell
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord Penzance would
not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three points were
defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one communicant; (2) Crucifix
upon the chancel screen; (3) the Stations of the Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United States" to
be a "collection" rather an "organic entity"
Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as expressed in
the Declaration of Independence.
The name "United States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies,
no matter what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and the
United States, using different words for each "united".
I'm sorry you are incorrect

The Articles of Confederation

Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1,
1781.
Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates
of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of
America."

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by
this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league
of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of
their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding
themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.


The articles created a federation of sovereign states. The weakness of
that government is why the people created a Union.


Vince
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 20:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
follow up on one point
Article 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz"
Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt)
adv. Abbr. viz.
That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or items.
"There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous electrical
system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet
17. The Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning
was in accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, viz
R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982] 1 All E R 587; R v
Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl Bridgewater" case). Mantell
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord Penzance would
not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three points were
defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one communicant; (2) Crucifix
upon the chancel screen; (3) the Stations of the Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United States" to
be a "collection" rather an "organic entity"
Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as expressed in
the Declaration of Independence.
The name "United States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies,
no matter what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and the
United States, using different words for each "united".
I'm sorry you are incorrect
The Articles of Confederation
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1,
1781.
Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates
of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of
America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by
this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league
of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of
their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding
themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
The articles created a federation of sovereign states. The weakness of
that government is why the people created a Union.
Vince
The British did not negotiate with each state but with the United
States. The Articles of Confederation were a later addition and were
superceded by the Constitution of 1787. The name signifying a united
group does not, in turn, suggest separate states.

In April 1782, the British parliament decided no longer to use
military force as a means to regain control of the thirteen colonies,
but did not recognize American independence. Shortly thereafter, the
British government sent a diplomat to negotiate with the American
ambassador in Paris, calling the ambassador the representative of the
North American "colonies". Formerly, they had not acknowledged that he
represented Americans. The American ambassador refused to accept his
credentials because they did not authorize him to negotiate as a
representative of "the United States of America". Parliament very
quickly revised the credentials, but not before a debate about whether
that amounted to recognition of independence or merely recognition of
the name by which the Americans wished to be called. No decision was
made on that question. It is possible that some members of Parliament
intended to recognize American independence when they voted for
revision of the credentials, and the Lord Chancellor said he
considered that act of Parliament to amount to such recognition.
"Preliminary articles of peace" signed in November 1782 stated that
the British recognized American independence, but they were not to be
effective until they were included in a final peace treaty.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 20:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
follow up on one point
Article 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz"
Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt)
adv. Abbr. viz.
That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or items.
"There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous electrical
system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet
17. The Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning
was in accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, viz
R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982] 1 All E R 587; R v
Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl Bridgewater" case). Mantell
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord Penzance would
not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three points were
defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one communicant; (2) Crucifix
upon the chancel screen; (3) the Stations of the Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United States" to
be a "collection" rather an "organic entity"
Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as expressed in
the Declaration of Independence.
The name "United States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies,
no matter what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and the
United States, using different words for each "united".
I'm sorry you are incorrect
The Articles of Confederation
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1,
1781.
Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates
of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of
America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by
this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league
of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of
their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding
themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
The articles created a federation of sovereign states. The weakness of
that government is why the people created a Union.
Vince
The British did not negotiate with each state but with the United
States. The Articles of Confederation were a later addition and were
superceded by the Constitution of 1787. The name signifying a united
group does not, in turn, suggest separate states.
In April 1782, the British parliament decided no longer to use
military force as a means to regain control of the thirteen colonies,
but did not recognize American independence. Shortly thereafter, the
British government sent a diplomat to negotiate with the American
ambassador in Paris, calling the ambassador the representative of the
North American "colonies". Formerly, they had not acknowledged that he
represented Americans. The American ambassador refused to accept his
credentials because they did not authorize him to negotiate as a
representative of "the United States of America". Parliament very
quickly revised the credentials, but not before a debate about whether
that amounted to recognition of independence or merely recognition of
the name by which the Americans wished to be called. No decision was
made on that question. It is possible that some members of Parliament
intended to recognize American independence when they voted for
revision of the credentials, and the Lord Chancellor said he
considered that act of Parliament to amount to such recognition.
"Preliminary articles of peace" signed in November 1782 stated that
the British recognized American independence, but they were not to be
effective until they were included in a final peace treaty.
Vince, even your articles of Confederation don't read like a loose
Confederation if you take Article VI to mean what it says.

VI.

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress
assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or
enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any
King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of
profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any
present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any
King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress
assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or
alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United
States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for
which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any
stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in
Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of
any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and
Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State,
except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United
States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its
trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of
peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United
States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison
the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State
shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia,
sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly
have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and
tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United
States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by
enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being
formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger
is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in
Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant
commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or
reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States
in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and
the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and
under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in
Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which
case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so
long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in
Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
Vince
2007-03-02 21:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Vince, even your articles of Confederation don't read like a loose
Confederation if you take Article VI to mean what it says.
VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress
assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or
enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any
King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of
profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any
present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any
King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress
assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or
alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United
States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for
which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.
No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any
stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in
Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of
any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and
Spain.
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State,
except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United
States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its
trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of
peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United
States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison
the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State
shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia,
sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly
have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and
tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United
States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by
enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being
formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger
is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in
Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant
commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or
reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States
in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and
the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and
under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in
Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which
case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so
long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in
Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
Its a deal among sovereign equals

It sets the terms of the deal
sovereign states make deals all the time



Vince
Vince
2007-03-02 20:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Vince wrote: follow up on one point
Article 1 His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United
States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign
and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all
claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights
of the same and every part thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz" Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt) adv. Abbr.
viz. That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or
items. "There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous
electrical system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet 17. The
Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning was in
accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of
Appeal, viz R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982]
1 All E R 587; R v Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord
Penzance would not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three
points were defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one
communicant; (2) Crucifix upon the chancel screen; (3) the
Stations of the
Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United
States" to be a "collection" rather an "organic entity" Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as
expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The name "United
States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies, no matter
what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and
the United States, using different words for each "united".
I'm sorry you are incorrect
The Articles of Confederation
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force,
March 1, 1781. Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned
Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United
States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is
not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States,
in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm
league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare,
binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered
to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of
religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
The articles created a federation of sovereign states. The
weakness of that government is why the people created a Union.
Vince
The British did not negotiate with each state but with the United
States. The Articles of Confederation were a later addition and were
superceded by the Constitution of 1787. The name signifying a united
group does not, in turn, suggest separate states.
they negotiated with a confederation of self declared independent states

you are wrong on the dates

The articles precede the treaty
Post by Jack Linthicum
In April 1782, the British parliament decided no longer to use
military force as a means to regain control of the thirteen colonies,
but did not recognize American independence. Shortly thereafter, the
British government sent a diplomat to negotiate with the American
ambassador in Paris, calling the ambassador the representative of the
North American "colonies". Formerly, they had not acknowledged that
he represented Americans. The American ambassador refused to accept
his credentials because they did not authorize him to negotiate as a
representative of "the United States of America". Parliament very
quickly revised the credentials, but not before a debate about
whether that amounted to recognition of independence or merely
recognition of the name by which the Americans wished to be called.
No decision was made on that question. It is possible that some
members of Parliament intended to recognize American independence
when they voted for revision of the credentials, and the Lord
Chancellor said he considered that act of Parliament to amount to
such recognition. "Preliminary articles of peace" signed in November
1782 stated that the British recognized American independence, but
they were not to be effective until they were included in a final
peace treaty.
you are missing the point

when douglas Macarther signed the instrument of surrender as

DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR

Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers

it does not make the "allied powers" an organic entity.
its a collection

The use of the careful legal term "viz" emphasized this point.

the term United nations in the german surrender documents did not have
the same meaning it has today



" 4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be
superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on
behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German
armed forces as a whole."

The united nations was a "coalition" at the time of th german surrender.

So were the United States in 1783



Vince
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 21:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Vince
2007-03-02 21:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Vince wrote: follow up on one point
Article 1 His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United
States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign
and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all
claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights
of the same and every part thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz" Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt) adv. Abbr.
viz. That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or
items. "There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous
electrical system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet17. The
Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning was in
accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of
Appeal, viz R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982]
1 All E R 587; R v Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord
Penzance would not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three
points were defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one
communicant; (2) Crucifix upon the chancel screen; (3) the
Stations of the
Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United
States" to be a "collection" rather an "organic entity" Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as
expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The name "United
States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies, no matter
what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and
the United States, using different words for each "united".
I'm sorry you are incorrect
The Articles of Confederation
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force,
March 1, 1781. Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned
Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United
States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is
not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States,
in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm
league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare,
binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered
to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of
religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
The articles created a federation of sovereign states. The
weakness of that government is why the people created a Union.
Vince
The British did not negotiate with each state but with the United
States. The Articles of Confederation were a later addition and were
superceded by the Constitution of 1787. The name signifying a united
group does not, in turn, suggest separate states.
they negotiated with a confederation of self declared independent states
you are wrong on the dates
The articles precede the treaty
Post by Jack Linthicum
In April 1782, the British parliament decided no longer to use
military force as a means to regain control of the thirteen colonies,
but did not recognize American independence. Shortly thereafter, the
British government sent a diplomat to negotiate with the American
ambassador in Paris, calling the ambassador the representative of the
North American "colonies". Formerly, they had not acknowledged that
he represented Americans. The American ambassador refused to accept
his credentials because they did not authorize him to negotiate as a
representative of "the United States of America". Parliament very
quickly revised the credentials, but not before a debate about
whether that amounted to recognition of independence or merely
recognition of the name by which the Americans wished to be called.
No decision was made on that question. It is possible that some
members of Parliament intended to recognize American independence
when they voted for revision of the credentials, and the Lord
Chancellor said he considered that act of Parliament to amount to
such recognition. "Preliminary articles of peace" signed in November
1782 stated that the British recognized American independence, but
they were not to be effective until they were included in a final
peace treaty.
you are missing the point
when douglas Macarther signed the instrument of surrender as
DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers
it does not make the "allied powers" an organic entity.
its a collection
The use of the careful legal term "viz" emphasized this point.
the term United nations in the german surrender documents did not have
the same meaning it has today
" 4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be
superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on
behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German
armed forces as a whole."
The united nations was a "coalition" at the time of th german surrender.
So were the United States in 1783
Vince
Ask Robert E. Lee on April 10, 1865 and Jeff Davis when they caught up
with him whether the United States was made of separate nations.
Viz that away.
they believed it or they would not have tried to secede.
They were wrong
but in 1785 they woudl have been correct.

Vince
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 21:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Vince
Post by Jack Linthicum
Vince wrote: follow up on one point
Article 1 His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United
States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign
and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all
claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights
of the same and every part thereof.
Some may not understand the importance of term "Viz" Viz.
vi·del·i·cet Pronunciation (v-dl-st, v-, w-dl-kt) adv. Abbr.
viz. That is; namely. Used to introduce examples, lists, or
items. "There were several problems, viz: leaky roof, dangerous
electrical system and broken windows.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/videlicet17. The
Court of Appeal took the view that the judge's reasoning was in
accord with first principles: R v Hayter [2003] 1 WLR 1910.
Mantell LJ reviewed three earlier decisions of the Court of
Appeal, viz R v Rhodes (1959) 44 Cr App R 23; R v Spinks [1982]
1 All E R 587; R v Hickey (unreported), 30 July 1997 (the "Carl
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050203/h...
There were twelve charges, but, having learned that Lord
Penzance would not set aside the Purchas Judgment, only three
points were defended--viz., (1) Celebration with only one
communicant; (2) Crucifix upon the chancel screen; (3) the
Stations of the
Crosshttp://anglicanhistory.org/england/ecu/roberts/1875.html
The importance is that it shows the reference to the "United
States" to be a "collection" rather an "organic entity" Vince
Which would not agree with the beliefs of the founders as
expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The name "United
States of America" speaks for a unified 13 colonies, no matter
what the British might say in a treaty. Just the same is the
dichotomy that the Soviets made between the United Nations and
the United States, using different words for each "united".
I'm sorry you are incorrect
The Articles of Confederation
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force,
March 1, 1781. Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned
Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United
States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is
not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States,
in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm
league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare,
binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered
to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of
religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
The articles created a federation of sovereign states. The
weakness of that government is why the people created a Union.
Vince
The British did not negotiate with each state but with the United
States. The Articles of Confederation were a later addition and were
superceded by the Constitution of 1787. The name signifying a united
group does not, in turn, suggest separate states.
they negotiated with a confederation of self declared independent states
you are wrong on the dates
The articles precede the treaty
Post by Jack Linthicum
In April 1782, the British parliament decided no longer to use
military force as a means to regain control of the thirteen colonies,
but did not recognize American independence. Shortly thereafter, the
British government sent a diplomat to negotiate with the American
ambassador in Paris, calling the ambassador the representative of the
North American "colonies". Formerly, they had not acknowledged that
he represented Americans. The American ambassador refused to accept
his credentials because they did not authorize him to negotiate as a
representative of "the United States of America". Parliament very
quickly revised the credentials, but not before a debate about
whether that amounted to recognition of independence or merely
recognition of the name by which the Americans wished to be called.
No decision was made on that question. It is possible that some
members of Parliament intended to recognize American independence
when they voted for revision of the credentials, and the Lord
Chancellor said he considered that act of Parliament to amount to
such recognition. "Preliminary articles of peace" signed in November
1782 stated that the British recognized American independence, but
they were not to be effective until they were included in a final
peace treaty.
you are missing the point
when douglas Macarther signed the instrument of surrender as
DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers
it does not make the "allied powers" an organic entity.
its a collection
The use of the careful legal term "viz" emphasized this point.
the term United nations in the german surrender documents did not have
the same meaning it has today
" 4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be
superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on
behalf of the United Nations and applicable to GERMANY and the German
armed forces as a whole."
The united nations was a "coalition" at the time of th german surrender.
So were the United States in 1783
Vince
Ask Robert E. Lee on April 10, 1865 and Jeff Davis when they caught up
with him whether the United States was made of separate nations.
Viz that away.
they believed it or they would not have tried to secede.
They were wrong
but in 1785 they woudl have been correct.
Vince
Lee was born in 1807, Davis in 1808. too late
D. Spencer Hines
2007-03-02 20:13:58 UTC
Permalink
In 1783 some of the Perfidious English were still thinking they could play
off these 13 sovereign and independent states against each other and work
their will against them by divide and conquer tactics.

They wanted to pit one state against another and intervene in American
affairs at will.

So, they kept their options open with this sort of language.

Fortunately, that was not to be.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-----------------------------------------------
Article 1
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
TMOliver
2007-03-02 19:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
the Texas tideland controversy was resolved against Texas as a matter of
law, but they prevailed politically as a matter of statute and politics
Statute sounds like law to me. Unable to carry the case in the courts, the
offended were preserved by Legislative and Executive conscience....
.
Post by Vince
Hawaii was clearly a sovereign state
Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the
independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete
diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into
treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and
navigation...
UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html
\I accept your correction, the difference being that upon becoming a
territory, Hawaii surrendered her public lands and most vestiges of
sovereignty, and went through an extended period of gradual reassumption of
management of internal affairs.
Vince
2007-03-02 19:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Post by Vince
the Texas tideland controversy was resolved against Texas as a
matter of law, but they prevailed politically as a matter of
statute and politics
Statute sounds like law to me. Unable to carry the case in the
courts, the offended were preserved by Legislative and Executive
conscience.... .
sorry your original claim was

Texas retained its public lands (and later legally established
ownership to
Post by TMOliver
Tidelands based upon the original agreement)
It was not in any way based upon the original agreement" it was based
on a 1950s statute

When the court ruled on the agreement Texas lost.
Post by TMOliver
Post by Vince
Hawaii was clearly a sovereign state
Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the
independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete
diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into
treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern
commerce and navigation... UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html
\I accept your correction, the difference being that upon becoming a
territory, Hawaii surrendered her public lands and most vestiges of
sovereignty, and went through an extended period of gradual
reassumption of management of internal affairs.
trivia question

who were

JOHN SHERMAN. FRANCIS MARCH HATCH. LORRIN A. THURSTON.
WILLIAM A KINNEY.


Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2007-03-02 18:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Yes, even many Americans are hazy concerning all those Good Facts about
Texas.

What's the Full Lowdown on the "break into five states" story?

DSH
Post by TMOliver
You've got a lot of learning to do.....
None of the 13 former colonies which entered the Confederacy were
recognized by the governments of foreign countries.
After the end of the Revolution, none had a standing military force which
fought under local (not Continental/Confederacy command) against a foreign
government.
Additionally, unlike the 13 original colonies and successive affiliates,
Texas retained its public lands (and later legally established ownership
to Tidelands based upon the original agreement), sovereign rights held by
no other state,
While the UK sent political emissaries to the Hawaiian Queen, I don't
recall any recognition and exchange of diplomats. Nobody else seems to
have recognized other than local de facto sovereign status for Hawaii's
government.
The once Embassy of France still stands in Austin, Texas and the
diplomatic incident arising over the death of the French Minister's hog
makes interesting reading in international relations. In London, the
former Embassy of the Republic is recognized by a plaque.
The Republic of Texas may not have lasted little more than a decade (while
Mexico's sovereignty over the place lasted no more than 15 or 13 years
depending on which date one recognizes for Mexican sovereignty's
establishment), but it's independent status was never doubted. The best
of the legends, the ability on its own right to divide into five states is
but urban legend, but makes a grand tale, and provides all sorts of
opportunity for young politicians to aspire to those extra 8 Senate seats.
Then there's the Emperor of Mexico (a crown claimed and apparently
recognized in some quarters abroad), Iturbide, a tragic figure, more
successful than Perkin Warbeck, but doomed to a brief rule and an
ignominious end. I guess these days only a handful of folks from
California or Texas may recall his moment upon the stage, but he seems to
have made less of an impression in New Mexico and Arizona.
TMO
The Highlander
2007-03-02 06:30:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:45:45 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized by
the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.
I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British Army
might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots enlistees
and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they swear an oath
too, England, Scotland or UK. If it's UK and a UK may not be dissolved,
pulling a Robert E. Lee would certainly comprise treason, a remedy that the
US didn't seek.
That's just plain nonsense. Scotland would seccede formally and
legally. This isn't some American cock-up run by George Bush; this is
a split which, if it takes place will emulate the quiet and peaceful
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

You're obviously not aware that the British government is running
scared of Scotland leaving, mainly because the overwhelming number of
Scots politicians living off the public trough in England will lose
their jobs.

However, I don't imagine for a moment that the English people would go
along with launching a civil war. There won't be British soldiers
driving along the streets of Edinburgh, because most of them are Scots
anyway and extremnely unlikely to fight their own people. Instead,
you're more likely to see Mrs. Thatcher's statue being torn down in
Westminster as the architect of Scottish decision to split away.

And if there's any attempt by the US to move in and try to grab our
oil, then you'll see what a real insurgency looks like.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
William Black
2007-03-02 07:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
That's just plain nonsense. Scotland would seccede formally and
legally. This isn't some American cock-up run by George Bush; this is
a split which, if it takes place will emulate the quiet and peaceful
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
You're obviously not aware that the British government is running
scared of Scotland leaving, mainly because the overwhelming number of
Scots politicians living off the public trough in England will lose
their jobs.
Not to mention Scotland having to pay for fifty or sixty foreign embassy and
an army and a navy and an airforce from the miniscule taxes raised there...
Post by The Highlander
However, I don't imagine for a moment that the English people would go
along with launching a civil war.
Not a hope...

There won't be British soldiers
Post by The Highlander
driving along the streets of Edinburgh, because most of them are Scots
anyway and extremnely unlikely to fight their own people. Instead,
you're more likely to see Mrs. Thatcher's statue being torn down in
Westminster as the architect of Scottish decision to split away.
And if there's any attempt by the US to move in and try to grab our
oil, then you'll see what a real insurgency looks like.
Why?

It's already been stolen by Perfidious Albion...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 11:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by The Highlander
That's just plain nonsense. Scotland would seccede formally and
legally. This isn't some American cock-up run by George Bush; this is
a split which, if it takes place will emulate the quiet and peaceful
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
You're obviously not aware that the British government is running
scared of Scotland leaving, mainly because the overwhelming number of
Scots politicians living off the public trough in England will lose
their jobs.
Not to mention Scotland having to pay for fifty or sixty foreign embassy and
an army and a navy and an airforce from the miniscule taxes raised there...
What absolute and incredibly ill-informed rubbish!
Scots have paid for those embassies and armed forces within the UK, just as
much, on a per capita basis,(some would claim more than), as the Northern
Irish, Welsh and English inhabitants of the UK. If these things were to be
split up there are no grounds whatsoever for them to counted as English
only.
Post by William Black
Post by The Highlander
However, I don't imagine for a moment that the English people would go
along with launching a civil war.
Not a hope...
There won't be British soldiers
Post by The Highlander
driving along the streets of Edinburgh, because most of them are Scots
anyway and extremnely unlikely to fight their own people. Instead,
you're more likely to see Mrs. Thatcher's statue being torn down in
Westminster as the architect of Scottish decision to split away.
And if there's any attempt by the US to move in and try to grab our
oil, then you'll see what a real insurgency looks like.
Why?
It's already been stolen by Perfidious Albion...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Paul J. Adam
2007-03-02 19:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by William Black
Not to mention Scotland having to pay for fifty or sixty foreign embassy and
an army and a navy and an airforce from the miniscule taxes raised there...
What absolute and incredibly ill-informed rubbish!
Scots have paid for those embassies and armed forces within the UK, just as
much, on a per capita basis,(some would claim more than), as the Northern
Irish, Welsh and English inhabitants of the UK. If these things were to be
split up there are no grounds whatsoever for them to counted as English
only.
Fair enough - when Scotland splits off it gets one-twelfth of the assets
of The Nation Formerly Known As The United Kingdom. (sixty million in
the UK, five million of whom are found north of the border)

Congratulations - the "Scottish Navy" is one Type 23 frigate.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
Andrew Robert Breen
2007-03-02 19:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J. Adam
Congratulations - the "Scottish Navy" is one Type 23 frigate.
Ssupect they'd find the Island + Castle class OPVs more useful. I'd
imagine a Scottish Navy would rather resemble the Irish Navy: OPVs and
helicopter support - pretty much what you need for fishery protection and
oil-rig security.

This would probably work amicably: with the Scottish fishing waters and
oil-fields gone, I can't see the RN having much use for the OPVs.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Andrew Robert Breen
2007-03-02 19:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
Post by Paul J. Adam
Congratulations - the "Scottish Navy" is one Type 23 frigate.
Going from Brown at 199x figures, a Castle was 6M UKP, a T23 120M UKP
(and nothing worth having in the ~6M UKP-~35K UKP or ~35M-~100M UKP
ranges). I'd imagine that any Scottish Navy would find 20 Castles (or,
still more 15x _River Clydes_) more useful than a T23..
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
Ssupect they'd find the Island + Castle class OPVs more useful. I'd
imagine a Scottish Navy would rather resemble the Irish Navy: OPVs and
helicopter support - pretty much what you need for fishery protection and
oil-rig security.
Mutter. Substitute Rivers for Islands. _River Clyde_ would make a nice
fleet flagship.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 23:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Robert Breen
Post by Paul J. Adam
Congratulations - the "Scottish Navy" is one Type 23 frigate.
Ssupect they'd find the Island + Castle class OPVs more useful. I'd
imagine a Scottish Navy would rather resemble the Irish Navy: OPVs and
helicopter support - pretty much what you need for fishery protection and
oil-rig security.
This would probably work amicably: with the Scottish fishing waters and
oil-fields gone, I can't see the RN having much use for the OPVs.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales,
Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
Considering that the Royal in question is also Queen of Scots could you
explain which RN you mean - the possible Scots one or the possible
English/Welsh/NI one. There has been nothing said by the most of the
independence parties in Scotland about ditching the Royal connection, (the
exception I think are is the SSP and Tommy Sheridan's new party. Do you
think for one minute that if Scotland went the rest would not follow? After
all the only part of the British Isles to break away is now the second
wealthiest nation in the European Union with the UK around sixth. It is
plain that if the Irish Republic car rise to be the second most wealthy
state in the EU that Scotland has many more natural resources and could
surpass them.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Paul J. Adam
2007-03-03 00:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Considering that the Royal in question is also Queen of Scots could you
explain which RN you mean - the possible Scots one or the possible
English/Welsh/NI one.
You wanted a per-capita split, you were given one.
Post by Robert Peffers.
It is
plain that if the Irish Republic car rise to be the second most wealthy
state in the EU that Scotland has many more natural resources and could
surpass them.
Then if you'd be so wealthy once you were independent, why do you need
the problem-plagued legacy forces from the Nation Formerly Known As The
United Kingdom?

Shake the dust from your feet and use your newfound wealth to buy a
_real_ military and the support system for it. It'll get you more
capability for less cost than being handed one-twelfth of UK Forces PLC.

Just who would you plan to use as your top scientist for hard-kill
defence against enemy antiship missiles? He's based down on the South
Coast and the UK only has one of him at the moment. Does Scotland
declare it will never face such a threat and abandon that capability? Do
you demand the Remaining UK train up someone for the job? (And who
pays?) Or do you insist that you get three hours a week of time from the
RN's nominated expert?

These details need to be resolved... along with what level of classified
data can be shared with Scotland. Will Scotland apply to join the "Four
Eyes" community (so named because it works at the AUSCANUKUS SECRET
level - hence four nations with 'Eyes Only' oversight)? If not, then
that scientist can't tell you very much without killing the audience
afterwards. What does Scotland bring to the table to convince the US to
share data?

When data under a new codeword comes out of Cheltenham, why should
anyone from a newly independent Scotland be read into it?

None of this is any reason why Scotland should not strike off alone...
but yet, these are the sort of details on which wars are won and lost.
Ireland does very nicely with armed forces that are frankly trivial:
Scotland might be best advised to do the same, because building its own
would *hurt*.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
dot
2007-03-03 00:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Robert Peffers. wrote:
After
Post by Robert Peffers.
all the only part of the British Isles to break away is now the second
wealthiest nation in the European Union with the UK around sixth. It is
plain that if the Irish Republic car rise to be the second most wealthy
state in the EU that Scotland has many more natural resources and could
surpass them.
The problem with this train of thought is that it's rather dependent on
EU handouts - I seem to recall that Ireland was one of the major
recipients of EU aid in the days of the Nine. Today with heaps of East
European poor members, there is simply not the same amount of dosh
floating around to finance a Scottish rerun of the State of Eire. It's
not that long ago when one of the major Irish exports was uni grads -
they couldn't get a job in Ireland so they left.

Come back down to earth man. The Union produced possibly the greatest
Empire the world has ever seen. Neither the English nor the Scots could
have done it alone. Synergy in the 1700's, y'know.

Steve in DK, with 2 sets of Scots parents (yes, they were married!)
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 11:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:45:45 -0600, "TMOliver"
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized by
the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.
I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British Army
might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots enlistees
and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they swear an oath
too, England, Scotland or UK. If it's UK and a UK may not be dissolved,
pulling a Robert E. Lee would certainly comprise treason, a remedy that the
US didn't seek.
That's just plain nonsense. Scotland would seccede formally and
legally. This isn't some American cock-up run by George Bush; this is
a split which, if it takes place will emulate the quiet and peaceful
dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
You're obviously not aware that the British government is running
scared of Scotland leaving, mainly because the overwhelming number of
Scots politicians living off the public trough in England will lose
their jobs.
However, I don't imagine for a moment that the English people would go
along with launching a civil war. There won't be British soldiers
driving along the streets of Edinburgh, because most of them are Scots
anyway and extremnely unlikely to fight their own people. Instead,
you're more likely to see Mrs. Thatcher's statue being torn down in
Westminster as the architect of Scottish decision to split away.
And if there's any attempt by the US to move in and try to grab our
oil, then you'll see what a real insurgency looks like.
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Matter of fact I was listening to Jack, "The Lad", McConnell only this
morning being interviewed on Radio Scotland. It soon became quite clear just
why he is steadfastly refusing to have public debates with the SNP leader
Alex Salmond. Jack's voice started to rise and he tried to shout down the
presenter. As he became almost hysterical he, as usual, started to tell the
World what the SNP policy was going to be. Like SNP policy would put more
children into poverty and how Labour had lifted so many of them out of
poverty. Unfortunately for Jack TV this morning carries reports from CPAG,
(Child Poverty Action Group), stating that not enough progress had been made
on poverty in Scotland with 900,000 people, (including 240.000 children),
now living in poverty. Says it all really. Then the bold Jack claimed that,
without England, Scotland would slide into poverty under the SNP. Yet under
British rule the poorest of the poor, (the now Republic of Ireland,) ranks
second highest on the wealth lists of Europe with the UK only running in 6th
place. Source -
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_european_union_countries

Seems to me that Scotland has far more natural resources than The Republic
and thus, free from UK rule, would rank higher in the European wealth lists
and might even give Luxembourg a run for first place.
EU Countries From Richest to Poorest*
1.. Luxembourg (pop. 474,413) ... $61,610
2.. Ireland (pop. 4,062,235) ... $32,930
3.. Austria (pop. 8,192,880) ... $31,800
4.. Denmark (pop. 5,450,661) ... $31,770
5.. Belgium (pop. 10,379,067) ... $31,530
6.. United Kingdom (pop. 60,609,153) ... $31,430
7.. Netherlands (pop. 16,491,461) ... $31,360
8.. Sweden (pop. 9,016,596) ... $29,880
9.. Finland (pop. 5,231,372) ... $29,800
10.. France (pop. 60,876,136) ... $29,460
11.. Germany (pop. 82,422,299) ... $28,170
12.. Italy (pop. 58,133,509) ... $28,120
13.. Spain (pop. 40,397,842) ... $24,750
14.. Greece (pop. 10,688,058) ... $22,230
15.. Cyprus (pop. 784,301) ... $22,230
16.. Slovenia (pop. 2,010,347) ... $20,830
17.. Portugal (pop. 10,605,870) ... $19,240
18.. Malta (pop. 400,214) ... $18,590
19.. Czech Republic (pop. 10,235,455) ... $18,420
20.. Hungary (pop. 9,981,334) ... $15,800
21.. Slovakia (pop. 5,439,448) ... $14,480
22.. Estonia (pop. 1,324,333) ... $13,630
23.. Poland (pop. 38,536,869) ... $12,730
24.. Lithuania (pop. 3,585,906) ... $12,690
25.. Latvia (pop. 2,274,735) ... $11,820
*based on 2004 PPP GNP per capita in international$

The above list shows that the EU family of European countries spans a wide
range of GNP income levels. Luxembourg's world-leading amount is 5 times
greater than that for Latvia.

Whatever else the above true facts regarding child poverty and Scotland's
potential to grow as independent of Westminster show that McConnell is at
best misled and at worst a deliberate liar.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Brian Sharrock
2007-03-02 10:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
Texas was a different kettle of fish, an independent republic, recognized
by the US, UK and France among others, and which surrendered even more
"sovereignty" than had the original 13 colonies. The other 36 states held
no sovereign powers, having had territorial status before statehood, and
their "sovereignty" was created by statehood.
So they voluntarily joined, but then couldn't leave?
It brings to mind the Eagles in Hotel California.
"You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave!"
Vince and Mr. Lincoln could explain it for you quite well, once joined
together, let no man put asunder, a contract incapable of dissolution.
Since a state may not leave, presumably the US couldn't eject one either.
I suspect that all the talk of Scotland "seceding" remains no more than
talk, and which attempted, would leave the attemptees subject to all sorts
of punitive action. On the other hand, the current size of the British
Army might make Scotlanda tough nut, although given past history, Scots
enlistees and officers would be in a quandary. Which sovereign do they
swear an oath too, England, Scotland or UK.
According to my (tattered) papers; - " ... Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,
her heirs and successors ... " . When I took the oath there wasn't any
suggestion of a dissolution of the Kingdom(s); but the inclusion of the
numerator (II) might be a clue.
Post by TMOliver
If it's UK and a UK may not be dissolved, pulling a Robert E. Lee would
certainly comprise treason, a remedy that the US didn't seek.
I think it's all a matter of scale.
If Scotland's Parliament ever decided to dissolve the Union of Parliaments
IMHO it shouldn't effect the sworn Officers or 'Other Ranks'. They _could_
interpret their oaths to refer to the Sovereign rather than the individual
Kingdom= Country= State. However the strategic need for Scotland as a shield
for England has dissipated with Technology and the demise of the Soviet
Union (of Socialist States).
Once upon a time it was _necessary_ to position a TACAN and Radar site on
the most northerly point of the United Kingdom, but nowadays with Satnav the
TACAN becomes a historic monument and the Radar Station's detection and
Control facilities are , effectively, available from AWACS a/c. It's not
really necessary for these to be homed at Lossiemouth- the Squadron could
operated from Lincolnshire (fr'instance).
Similarly the SNP's cry of Submarines must be operated from Clyde Naval Base
(CNB) doesn't "hold water", because although there's been massive investment
in the Faslane area there's plenty of places in England & Wales where such
an investment could be made.

As Jim Hacker said 'it's France' or as Sir Humphrey said; "Where are the
armed forces sited; Aldershot, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Lyneham ? ".

I'm guessing (obviously) but there may be Scottish Officers' who's target
ambition is to be LtCol 0/C $Scottish_Battalion but I wonder how many naval
and airforce officers have limited their ambitions to flotilla and /or
Squadron levels.

if ,IMHO, the union of parliaments was dissolved and Scotland demanded their
own' share' of the armed forces of the United Kingdom it would be impossible
to restrict the English/Welsh/Irish folks 'posted' to Scotland to that
country. They individually would demand to be posted to the 'United
Kingdom' - and practically most 'tours' are three year duration so they'd be
expecting to have their 'Blue Chitities' signed off not later than three
years after 'Independence'. A much more interesting question might be; -How
is the NAAFI divvied-up?

BTW, although oath-sworn to the Sovereign; Warrant Officers derive their
rank from a Warrant off the Parliament. No (union of Parliament) ; no
Warrant Officers.?
TMOliver
2007-03-02 19:11:32 UTC
Permalink
"Brian Sharrock" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote

snipped, interesting military analysis.....

A question?

Since an officer's oath is to the sovereign, in the highly imaginary
scenario of an attempt at separation, suppose the soverein in one of the
only actions he/she might take to halt the process, announced that he/she
interpreted the oaths as personal and that she forbade any officer in UK
service from taking Scottish service, aknowledging that by doing so, he/she
might be jeopardizing his/her right to the Crown of Scotland.
Post by Brian Sharrock
BTW, although oath-sworn to the Sovereign; Warrant Officers derive their
rank from a Warrant off the Parliament. No (union of Parliament) ; no
Warrant Officers.?
Are Warrants in Scottish regiments from the Parliament in London? If so,
they would certainly owe no fealty or allegiance to orders from
Edinburgh....

TMO
Brian Sharrock
2007-03-02 22:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by TMOliver
snipped, interesting military analysis.....
A question?
Since an officer's oath is to the sovereign,
Every person; Officer and Other Rank [Enlisted] - and police and Customs and
... etc. swears an oath of loyalty to the Sovereign. An Officer (Cadet) will
be commissioned into the Queen's service when and if they pass out from
Snadurst and have been accepted into a Regiment or Corps.
Post by TMOliver
in the highly imaginary scenario of an attempt at separation, suppose the
soverein in one of the only actions he/she might take to halt the process,
announced that he/she interpreted the oaths as personal
That's the way it _is_, a _personal_ oath !
Post by TMOliver
and that she forbade any officer in UK service from taking Scottish
service,
The Army is somewhat different as Officers and Men will have been
commiisioned/recruited into a Scottish Regiment. If'n I were an
Officer/Other rank sworn to serve Her Majesty _within_ a Scottish Regimentl
I'd have difficulty understanding an order which forbade me to continue
serving my engagement ... :)

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are a different kettle of fish, In broad
brush strokes, one joins the service, trains, pass out from Training then
are assigned to a 'job'. it might be polishing the brasses on an Air Force
Station and /or Ship -that just happens to be- in Scotland or the Shetlands
Islands. I doubt the Monarch - who had a Scottish Mother and has residences
in Scotland- would ever order her English/Welsh/Irish subjects not to enroll
in a Scottish Navy or Air Force ... but I firmly believe from personal and
recent anecdotal exposure that it'd be difficult to retain anybody north of
the border.
Post by TMOliver
aknowledging that by doing so, he/she might be jeopardizing his/her right
to the Crown of Scotland.
The Sovereign is King of Scots. Full stop (period).
Post by TMOliver
Post by Brian Sharrock
BTW, although oath-sworn to the Sovereign; Warrant Officers derive their
rank from a Warrant off the Parliament. No (union of Parliament) ; no
Warrant Officers.?
Are Warrants in Scottish regiments from the Parliament in London? If so,
they would certainly owe no fealty or allegiance to orders from
Edinburgh....
TMO
Warrants are issued by the United Parliament {which happens to sit in
Westminster].

Because of a historic development whereby the Crown commissions the forces
but parliament 'Votes' the funding, traditionally Commissioned Officers
aren't allowed to have ownership of the 'kit'. All items paid for from
'Public Funds' are inventoried then they are 'Issued' to 'Inventory Holders'
who are personally liable for their existence. [Items are classified as
Class A / B / C stores and there are various regulations about repair /
replacement / consumption but the general principle is ; if you 'sign for'
it, you've gotta show it's in your possession.]
As 'ossifers' can't hold inventories it falls to the Warrants & SNCO to
accept this onerous duty and care for Public items.
Why do 'Warrants' come from Parliament? It's so that if a bunch of Officers
cry to their subordinate troops; "We're going to storm Parliament!" .. the
Warrants shout back "Not using my Inventory!"
--
Brian
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-01 20:49:30 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Even much of the history of WWII that now accepted as fact by many can be
disproved by those of us who lived through it.
The best example is the myth that the USA entered WWII to save the UK
after supplying her with free weapons and equipment.
Truth is they sold us the weapons and equipment in an effort to haul
themselves out of the Great Depression and we only made the last payment
of Lend/Lease a couple of months ago.
Indeed. But noone with an interest in history would believe in the myth;
especially
since the Lend/Lease system is well known.
This myth is propagated by people with an agenda, who have got their
version of
history from Hollywood.
Sorry but no, there have been many posters from the USA on scs who have
often claimed otherwise.
Furthermore, the USA only came to actually fight for their own
defence(admitted in their Cash & Carry Act and Lease/Lend Act), after
Japan declared war upon the USA and Hitler did the same a few days later.
Yes. Because before Pearl Harbour, most USAns were against entering the
war.
An interesting "what-if" would be if the USA would have declared war
against
Germany if Hitler hadn't made one of his worst mistakes.
What is more the post-WWI USA had an official, "Isolationist", policy.
Although President Wilson was a prime mover in the formation of the, "League
of Nations", the voters turned their backs on him, (and Europe), and they
dumped him in the 1920 election. Thereafter the USA did not ratify the
Treaty of Versailles, nor did they join the League of Nations or the
International Court of Justice. During the 1920's and 1930's, The USA took
little part in international relations. isolateing herself in terms of
trade. Tariffs were put on foreign goods to protect American industry. This
was one of the causes of the Depression. The USA also cut down the number of
immigrants allowed into the USA. In 1921 the "open door" policy ended and
quotas were introduced. By 1929 only 150,000 immigrants per year were
allowed but the system favoured W.A.S.P.s (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants)
from northern Europe.
Here is a reference to a GCSE revision page that was used in English
schools. Do you think the actual truth is taught in USA schools or do
they have another version?
http://intranet.pool.cornwall.sch.uk/dividedusa.doc
Any honest historian will tell you that there's no truth in history.
We have facts (like WW II) and then we have interpretations of the facts
(why did WW II happen).
I have been telling the true history of WWII since before its end but
much of the written, (and Hollywood film), history is utter bunk.
Do you think that this is a new situation?
Well, there are some well-researched books about WW II.
But those are serious history, not popular history.
And even the serious books contain errors; nobody's perfect.
Example 1: - Witness the many historic references made to Bede's works.
Yes; from these references we can conclude that Bede's works exist.
But not whether they are accurate; for that we'd need verification from
other sources (be they archaeological or other historical sources).
Example 2 :- Blind Harry (ca. 1440 - 1492), also known as Harry or Henry
the Minstrel, is renowned as the earliest surviving lengthy source for
the events of the life of William Wallace, the Scottish patriot and
freedom-fighter, and hero of the film Braveheart. He wrote The Acts and
Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace
around 1477, 170 years after the death of Wallace in 1305.
Yes. From that we may conclude that Wallace existed.
But not what his motives for his fight were.
Was he really a patriot or did he see a chance to grab power or was he
forced to act like he did by circumstances ?
We can't say for sure.
I think we can, for Wallace seems to have made no efforts to rise in the
order of the day or to have gained any estates from the crown. His rank was
considerably lower than the likes of The Douglas.
He was a knight but a quite lowly one.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
What is strange is that the average USA citizen is utterly devoid of any
historical knowledge - even that of their own country.
Anyway to finish the job here is a quick summing of the USA history :-

1917 - The USA join World War I on the Allied Side
1918 - End of World War I
1919 - Treaty of Versailles signed by not agreed to by US Congress,
Prohibition passed
1921 - 'Quota Act' passed to limit immigration to the USA
1922 - Fordney-McCumber Tariff
1929 - Wall Street Crash and start of the Great Depression
1932 - Roosevelt defeats Hoover in election
1933 - New Deal starts with Roosevelt's first hundred days in office
1935 - Second New Deal
1936 - Roosevelt re-elected by a landslide - Roosevelt falls out with the
supreme court
1937 - US economy again slumps after spending on New Deal is cut
1939 - Start of war in Europe
1940 - Roosevelt re-elected for an historic third term
1941 - Pearl Harbour brings the USA into the Second World War.

In 1946 the League of Nations transferred all assets to the United Nations.
The USA were never members of the former.

The UN was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by
50 countries.
There are 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has
veto power on any UN resolution.
These are the main victors of World War II.
The People's Republic of China, (replaced the Republic of China).
French Republic.
The Russian Federation (replaced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
The United Kingdom
The United States of America.

As of 2007, there are 192 United Nations member states, encompassing almost
every recognized independent state.

The International Court of Justice. - Established in 1945 by the Charter of
the United Nations, - the USA withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002 - to
prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and
the crime of aggression.
It cannot currently exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.
The court can only prosecute crimes committed on or after July 1, 2002.
which was the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, was signed.
104 states are currently members of the Court, and 41 other countries have
signed but not ratified the Statute.

However, a number of states, including the United States, China and India,
continue to oppose it.

To my mind the USA still practice a form of Isolationism while they have
also become a very aggressive state invading many sovereign states.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
.
Michael Kuettner
2007-03-01 21:30:37 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Even much of the history of WWII that now accepted as fact by many can be disproved by those of us who lived through it.
The best example is the myth that the USA entered WWII to save the UK after supplying her with free weapons and equipment.
Truth is they sold us the weapons and equipment in an effort to haul themselves out of the Great Depression and we only made the
last payment of Lend/Lease a couple of months ago.
Indeed. But noone with an interest in history would believe in the myth; especially
since the Lend/Lease system is well known.
This myth is propagated by people with an agenda, who have got their version of
history from Hollywood.
Sorry but no, there have been many posters from the USA on scs who have often claimed otherwise.
Yep. People with an agenda, etc.
See above.
Furthermore, the USA only came to actually fight for their own defence(admitted in their Cash & Carry Act and Lease/Lend Act),
after Japan declared war upon the USA and Hitler did the same a few days later.
Yes. Because before Pearl Harbour, most USAns were against entering the war.
An interesting "what-if" would be if the USA would have declared war against
Germany if Hitler hadn't made one of his worst mistakes.
What is more the post-WWI USA had an official, "Isolationist", policy.
Yes.
Although President Wilson was a prime mover in the formation of the, "League of Nations", the voters turned their backs on him,
(and Europe), and they dumped him in the 1920 election. Thereafter the USA did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, nor did they
join the League of Nations or the International Court of Justice. During the 1920's and 1930's, The USA took little part in
international relations. isolateing herself in terms of trade. Tariffs were put on foreign goods to protect American industry.
Yes.
This was one of the causes of the Depression.
How so ?
The USA also cut down the number of immigrants allowed into the USA. In 1921 the "open door" policy ended and quotas were
introduced. By 1929 only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed but the system favoured W.A.S.P.s (White Anglo-Saxon
Protestants) from northern Europe.
Yes. But there was also a big contingent of German-Americans.
The mood in the USA was pro-German until Pearl and war being declared on
them by Adolph.

<snip>
Example 2 :- Blind Harry (ca. 1440 - 1492), also known as Harry or Henry the Minstrel, is renowned as the earliest surviving
lengthy source for the events of the life of William Wallace, the Scottish patriot and freedom-fighter, and hero of the film
Braveheart. He wrote The Acts and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace around 1477, 170 years
after the death of Wallace in 1305.
Yes. From that we may conclude that Wallace existed.
But not what his motives for his fight were.
Was he really a patriot or did he see a chance to grab power or was he
forced to act like he did by circumstances ?
We can't say for sure.
I think we can, for Wallace seems to have made no efforts to rise in the order of the day or to have gained any estates from the
crown. His rank was considerably lower than the likes of The Douglas.
He was a knight but a quite lowly one.
But we can't arrive at your conclusions above with just Blind Harry as a source.
The knowledge that his rank was quite low wasn't mentioned by him, was it ?
It's the same with Homer or Das Nibelungenlied or Mort d'Arthur.
The writer takes certain things (which have to be reconstructed by us) for
common knowledge.
What is strange is that the average USA citizen is utterly devoid of any historical knowledge - even that of their own country.
That's a bit unfair.
The percentage of USA citizens being utterly devoid of any historical
knowledge isn't that different from other countries.
But since there are more citizens and more have access to the Internet
than - let's say- Switzerland, one tends to notice larger numbers of them.

<snip>
To my mind the USA still practice a form of Isolationism while they have also become a very aggressive state invading many
sovereign states.
"God's own country" sums it up nicely.

And I would use "some" instead of "many" states re. invasion.
If we widen your argument to "violently interfering into the affairs of
sovereign states", we get to "many". United Fruit, The Shah, Noriega ....



Cheers,

Michael Kuettner
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 00:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Kuettner
Post by Robert Peffers.
<snip>
Even much of the history of WWII that now accepted as fact by many can
be disproved by those of us who lived through it.
The best example is the myth that the USA entered WWII to save the UK
after supplying her with free weapons and equipment.
Truth is they sold us the weapons and equipment in an effort to haul
themselves out of the Great Depression and we only made the last
payment of Lend/Lease a couple of months ago.
Indeed. But noone with an interest in history would believe in the myth; especially
since the Lend/Lease system is well known.
This myth is propagated by people with an agenda, who have got their version of
history from Hollywood.
Sorry but no, there have been many posters from the USA on scs who have
often claimed otherwise.
Yep. People with an agenda, etc.
See above.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Furthermore, the USA only came to actually fight for their own
defence(admitted in their Cash & Carry Act and Lease/Lend Act), after
Japan declared war upon the USA and Hitler did the same a few days later.
Yes. Because before Pearl Harbour, most USAns were against entering the war.
An interesting "what-if" would be if the USA would have declared war against
Germany if Hitler hadn't made one of his worst mistakes.
What is more the post-WWI USA had an official, "Isolationist", policy.
Yes.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Although President Wilson was a prime mover in the formation of the,
"League of Nations", the voters turned their backs on him, (and Europe),
and they dumped him in the 1920 election. Thereafter the USA did not
ratify the Treaty of Versailles, nor did they join the League of Nations
or the International Court of Justice. During the 1920's and 1930's, The
USA took little part in international relations. isolateing herself in
terms of trade. Tariffs were put on foreign goods to protect American
industry.
Yes.
Post by Robert Peffers.
This was one of the causes of the Depression.
How so ?
Because they could not sell their goods to the USA, European countries could
not afford to buy agricultural goods (farm produce) from the USA. Simple
really. It was largely an agaricultural economy then so if everyone is
farming who could they sell their produce to. Of course, "The Great Dust
Bowl", did not help
Post by Michael Kuettner
Post by Robert Peffers.
The USA also cut down the number of immigrants allowed into the USA. In
1921 the "open door" policy ended and quotas were introduced. By 1929
only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed but the system favoured
W.A.S.P.s (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) from northern Europe.
Yes. But there was also a big contingent of German-Americans.
The mood in the USA was pro-German until Pearl and war being declared on
them by Adolph.
<snip>
Post by Robert Peffers.
Example 2 :- Blind Harry (ca. 1440 - 1492), also known as Harry or
Henry the Minstrel, is renowned as the earliest surviving lengthy
source for the events of the life of William Wallace, the Scottish
The Acts and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir
William Wallace around 1477, 170 years after the death of Wallace in
1305.
Yes. From that we may conclude that Wallace existed.
But not what his motives for his fight were.
Was he really a patriot or did he see a chance to grab power or was he
forced to act like he did by circumstances ?
We can't say for sure.
I think we can, for Wallace seems to have made no efforts to rise in the
order of the day or to have gained any estates from the crown. His rank
was considerably lower than the likes of The Douglas.
He was a knight but a quite lowly one.
But we can't arrive at your conclusions above with just Blind Harry as a source.
The knowledge that his rank was quite low wasn't mentioned by him, was it ?
It's the same with Homer or Das Nibelungenlied or Mort d'Arthur.
The writer takes certain things (which have to be reconstructed by us) for
common knowledge.
Post by Robert Peffers.
What is strange is that the average USA citizen is utterly devoid of any
historical knowledge - even that of their own country.
That's a bit unfair.
The percentage of USA citizens being utterly devoid of any historical
knowledge isn't that different from other countries.
But since there are more citizens and more have access to the Internet
than - let's say- Switzerland, one tends to notice larger numbers of them.
As I pointed out both the modern Scottish and English education systems
teach history, and they teach World History , we do not have isolationism.
In fact your average younger Briton probable knows more USA history than
Scottish history. We older Scots have long protested at the lack of Scottish
history teaching in our schools. Just remember that we are talking about a
country that used to belt Scottish pupils for speaking Scots. They were
effectively proscribing the Scots language. I speak Scots, (and resented
them preventing me), though well able to cope with English, I continued to
use Scots and no belting was going to stop me. This practice was only
stopped in the late 90s.
Post by Michael Kuettner
<snip>
Post by Robert Peffers.
To my mind the USA still practice a form of Isolationism while they have
also become a very aggressive state invading many sovereign states.
"God's own country" sums it up nicely.
And I would use "some" instead of "many" states re. invasion.
If we widen your argument to "violently interfering into the affairs of
sovereign states", we get to "many". United Fruit, The Shah, Noriega ....
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Sheila J
2007-03-01 21:16:54 UTC
Permalink
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-01 21:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
nilita
2007-03-01 21:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....

- nilita
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-01 22:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by nilita
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....
I say it no such way! I just said it was risky, you might be hoisted by
your own poutine!
Post by nilita
- nilita
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-01 23:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by nilita
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....
I say it no such way! I just said it was risky, you might be hoisted by
your own poutine!
Post by nilita
- nilita
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
I wonder how many know what a petard is?
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-02 16:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by nilita
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....
I say it no such way! I just said it was risky, you might be hoisted by
your own poutine!
Post by nilita
- nilita
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
I wonder how many know what a petard is?
More that used to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 16:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by nilita
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....
I say it no such way! I just said it was risky, you might be hoisted by
your own poutine!
Post by nilita
- nilita
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
I wonder how many know what a petard is?
More that used to.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
One might interpet the phrase to mean shit your pants

"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne
petar" -- Shakespeare, Hamlet III iv. "Hoist" was in Shakespeare's
time the past participles of a verb "to hoise", which meant what "to
hoist" does now: to lift. A petard (see under "peter out" for the
etymology) was an explosive charge detonated by a slowly burning
fuse. If the petard went off prematurely, then the sapper (military
engineer; Shakespeare's "enginer") who planted it would be hurled
into the air by the explosion. (Compare "up" in "to blow up".) A
modern rendition might be: "It's fun to see the engineer blown up
with his own bomb."

[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet,
a breaking of wind, from Latin pēditum, from neuter past participle of
pēdere, to break wind.]

WORD HISTORY The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal
gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of
a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase
apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not
long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow
oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The
French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun
pēditum, from the Indo-European root *pezd–, “fart.”
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 23:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by nilita
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....
I say it no such way! I just said it was risky, you might be hoisted by
your own poutine!
Post by nilita
- nilita
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
I wonder how many know what a petard is?
More that used to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Yes perhaps. My question was to see if that little gem about the breaking
wind was known. Most educated folk will know the, "Falling into ones own
trap", bit but the other often comes as a surprise to them.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
La N
2007-03-01 23:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by nilita
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them of
their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Geeze, Cory, you say that as if it were a bad thing ....
I say it no such way! I just said it was risky, you might be hoisted by
your own poutine!
Look, the way I see it, Sheila and I are creative enough to serve up poutine
at least 9 different ways!

I think that washing it down with Molson's actually flushes out the system
....

- nilita
Bryn
2007-03-01 21:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a
diamond and then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can
always be in touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't
fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them
of their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Nothing wrong with a bit of fat in the blood........

Croak! Gurgle...................
Where's my Statins?
--
While moon sets
atop the trees,
leaves cling to rain.

Bashõ
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-01 22:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryn
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a
diamond and then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I
can always be in touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes
don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
She plans to clog the arteries of retirees in a scheme to fleece them
of their savings. She wants you as an accomplice. Sounds risky to me.
Nothing wrong with a bit of fat in the blood........
Croak! Gurgle...................
It's only a *little* chunky...
Post by Bryn
Where's my Statins?
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
nilita
2007-03-01 21:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sheila J
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
I have already told everyone that I want to be turned into a diamond and
then become the family heirloom. Figured that way I can always be in
touch and won't be too embarrassed in my ashes don't fit the jar!
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/location_CANADA.asp
I myself have plans to contact them to fashion me into some kind of
cocktail ring.
And, hey, grrrrl!
Jack and I were talking about you today in sci.military.naval.
When are we going to set up The Bistro Poutine in Florida, eh?
- nilita
Oh no..what were you saying!!?
All good things, my adopted daughter .... especially how we (and
especially *moi*) have missed your wit, smarts, intelligence,
kindness ...

- nilita
The Highlander
2007-03-01 23:43:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:36:27 +0100, "Michael Kuettner"
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:04:04 +0100, "Michael Kuettner"
<snip>
"Was Brot ich ess' , des Lied ich sing'"
Translated : " Who pays the piper calls the tune."
I think that's rather insulting. We may have had an oral culture, but
then we know how easy it is to lie in writing, as your fellow
Landsmann, the late A. Hitler showed us much
Tsk, tsk. Godwinising that early ?
Where do you find an insult ? The above comment isn't directed against
oral culture or Scottish oral culture.
It's just a hint that _every_ historical source is to be taken with a grain
of salt.
Be it oral or written down.
Despite the Celtic twilight nonsense, it is noteworthy that
most place names acted as an oral Baedecker's Guide, so that when
venturing into parts unknown, the names given to geographical features
tended to be descriptive, rather than fanciful, so you were forewarned
about what sort of country you would be travelling through, with names
like Plain of the Bogs, The Road of Flagstones or the Hillside of
Pines, mixed with the invariable memorable incidents, such as Field of
the Shirts; (Blar-Na-Leine) fought on 3 July, 1544 between the
Frasers, the MacDonalds and the Camerons.
Yes, but place-names have nothing to do with historical facts.
MacAlpin didn't come from the Alps ;-)
Place-names are a nice way to fill in some historical details (like
the age of the village), since they tend to be conservative.
But some of the names can't be explained anymore; like "Wien"
from "Vindobona", a Roman coinage. It seems to refer to a Celtic
river god(dess).
Well, as the Celts occupied a large part of Austria, why would you be
surprised?
I'm not surprised. I was pointing out while place-names are useful, sometimes
we have lost the knowledge of the meaning behind them.
It was a hot day and the
clansmen stripped to the waist, leaving their shirts lying behind
them.
Nonsense !
They just wanted to save the pennies for cleaning their shirts !
True Scots to a man, IOW.
<snip>
Highland folk medicine is of interest because the Highlanders knew a
great deal about treating wounds, as well as using foxgloves
(digitalis) to treat people with heart problems and eating blueberries
to prevent what we now call Alzheimers. .
Wrong conclusion.
People eat the fruits that are easily available. Connections between
blueberries and Alzheimer weren't detected by Scots.
Sometimes blind luck rules.
Could you be a little more specific about the dates ?
When was digitalis used in Scotland to cure heart-problems ?
(This thread is cross-posted, and I'm reading shm).
Since time immeroial. I was taught the recipe for making it as a
child. I'll also thank you to stop mocking our culture; it was a
greaty deal more successful in its wars than youre ever was, In fact,
if Ghenghis Khan hadn't died unexpectedly, Vienna would have been a
Mongol possession.
Where did I mock your culture ?
If you don't get the difference between a friendly joke and your sneering
above, you have a reading - comprehension problem.
The "Mongols versus Europe" has been discussed several times in shm, btw.
You faith in the written word is touchingly naive.
Where did you get that impression from ?
All sources have to be evaluated critically.
The primary treatment for a serious wound was to urinate on it thereby
sterilizing it, and if possible, i.e. being close to any bush,
stuffing it with masses of spiderweb, which made the wound heal far
faster than leaving it merely bandaged.
Er, what ?
_Visible_ spiderweb is visible because there's lots of dirt on it.
God spoare me, it's like instructing a child!
It rains a lot in Scotland, and after each shower, spider's webs are
easily seen because the water drips from them like silver beads among
the bushes.
Thankfully, another member of scs has answered my question.
<snip>
It would be easier if you could put some dates to your statements.
Example : "Highland culture". Which time-frame ?
Go to a library and read a book on the subject. We are not here to
drive out ignorance, we are here to discuss matters of interest to
ourselves.
I thought the differences between Highland culture and general Scottish
culture would be of interest to scs ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
What, are you under the impression that we know nothing about our own
country and its various cultures?

Let me explain what Scotland is about.

Scotland's history is one of constant warfare, both internally among
themselves, mostly over religion, and externally almost always against
English attempts to take over and control the country.

Ireland had a similar history and as both are closely related Celtic
cultures, it was common for Irish warriors to come to Scotland to help
fight the English, and reciprocally, Highlanders in particular would
go to Ireland to help drive off the English and protect the Gaeltacht
regions. There is still substantial cross-mingling between the two
nations and I think they would make an excellent partnership if
Scotland withdraws from the United Kingdom next May.

The declaration of Arbroath, drawn up in Arbroath Abbey on the 6th
April 1320, was unequivocal on this point; It declared bluntly, "...as
long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any
conditions be brought under English rule."

The Lowland Scots, although often of Highland descent, were natural
merchants, bankers and farmers. The Highland Scots lived in a feudal
rather than tribal society, whose chiefs measured their wealth by the
number of fighting men they could put in the field, and whose common
people in general led lives as close to misery as made no difference.
They however reinforced their image of themselves with music, poetry,
fighting skills and the concept of "Cliù". Cliù is often translated as
"Honour", but fact that is an inaccurate rendering; the actual Gaelic
word for honour is "Onair"; Gaelic being an Indo-European language.
although admittedly, one of the most distant from the Indo-Euopean
mainstream.

Cliù means "face", not in the sense of a human face; that's "aghaidh"
or "aodann" but face as in the Chinese understanding of face, namely
reputation, and the most serious thing that could happen to a man,
even today, is to lose face; to look bad in front of his neighbours;
something that will tag him for the rest of his life.

Cliù on the other hand can preserve a man's reputation for centuries
after his death, and men like Sir Ewan Cameron of Lochiel (1629-1719)
was admired and trusted by his men for his martial successes and for
the way in which he conducted himself. He is still honoured in the
Highlands to this day for his incredible feat of killing 124 English
Redcoats out of 300, with only 30 men at his side - there were 35, but
musket fire killed five when they were closing in on the Redcoats. The
remaining English soldiers fled for their lives.

Cliù is also the legacy of Flora MacDonald (1722-1790) who as a young
girl, smuggled Bonnie Prince Charlie to safety at under the noses of
the Redcoats and at the risk of her own life - there was a bounty of
£30,000 on his head - by disguising him as her lady's maid. Flora was
later arrested as a traitor before being freed in an amnesty. Every
young Highland girl wants to grow up to be Flora MacDonald and her
cliù will last as long as Highlanders are alive. Thousands came to her
funeral, many traveling futher than they had ever been in their lives,
from all over the Highlands and Islands.

Dr. Samuel Johnson the English lexicographer met her during his tour
of the Highlands and Islands. He said of her that she "will be
mentioned in history, and if courage and fidelity be virtues,
mentioned with honour." These words are engraved on her grave stone
and her statue stands below Inverness Castle.

In the Highlands, bravery is prized above all else, but it is also
well understood, and her reputation is only enhanced by the fact that
she was initially terrified at having anything to do with the Prince
because the reward for anyone helping him was death. She decided to
help him when her family told her that it was her duty and also when
she met him, because despite the slanders put about regarding him, he
was a handsome young man with a pleasing manner and brave to boot,
according to the accounts of those Highlanders who had a chance to
observe him. Indeed seven bandits sheltered him for a while in a cave
and were so impressed by his courage and sense of humour, that one
risked his life to go down to Fort William to buy gingerbread for the
Prince, as they all felt that their rough fare was unsuitable for such
a fine gentleman, unquote!

Cliù was what saved Bonnie Prince Charlie, for many people knew where
he was at any given time. I remember reading a book wherein the author
remarked, "It says much for the manners and mores of the men of the
Highlands that despite a reward of £30,000 for his capture; (an
unimaginable sum of money in a country where £1 spent on whisky could
keep 10 men drunk for a week); not one person betrayed him."

As my mother, a notorious cynic said, "Where would he have gone with
it anyway? Half the Highlands would have been looking for him to
avenge the Prince, and the other half looking to get their hands on
the money!"

Indeed one young gentleman, well-dressed, carrying a sword and spotted
by a patrol of Redcoats, was pursued to Loch Arkaig, if I remember
correctly, and ran into the water before turning to face his pursuers,
prepared to sell his life dearly. The Redcoats simply shot him from
the shore, but he had the presence of mind to cry out in English as he
went down, "You have killed your prince!"

There was great excitement - £30,000 would have been a fine prize for
Redcoats - and the young man's body was beheaded and the head sent to
England to have those who had known Bonnie Prince Charlie identify it.

Needless to say, despite the fine clothes and the knowledge of
English, they were unable to identify the young man as far as I am
aware, but more importantly, his inspired last words put the Redcoats
off the trail for weeks as the head was trundled to London in a
stagecoach, while the Prince was rescued by a French warship, sent to
find him and take him back to France, without, as one irate lady on
the Isle of Skye said angrily many years ago, "Not even a thanks on a
postcard to poor Flora!"

Anachronism and Modernity walk hand in hand in the Highlands...

The opinion of men who have fought with Highlanders is that far from
being the harsh, brutal killers that they were portrayed as, they were
in fact a last stronghold of the virtues of the ancient Greek
warriors, jealous of their reputations, skilled fighters to a man and
firm believers in the saying, "Theid duine gu bàs air sgàth an nàire -
A man will die to save his honour. (Actually, a better translation of
the import is "A man will die rather than be shamed publicly".)

The CIA knew what it was doing when it sent Afghans to the Highlands
to learn from the SAS how to fight effectively in mountain country
during their struggle against the Red Army.

I have dedicated a lot of space to explaining the Highlanders of old,
but the Lowland people too have a substantial history of bravery and
battle to the death for Scotland's sake. I have mentioned recently
that in WWI, two-thirds of the young men of Scotland died in the
trenches. As with the Highland regiments, soldiering in the local
Lowland regiment was a matter of pride and honour, and the Borderers
in particular, some of the toughest - and roughest - men in Europe,
were legendary for their exploits and feats. The Border Ballads,
possibly the finest folk songs known, were taken to America and became
part of that culture too, especially in Appalachia and the American
South as far as Texas. The Border Ballads tell of a life of hardship,
sudden death and cruelty that would have stunned any Iraqi insurgent.
They were a harsh people; many still are; and a classic example was
when my uncle came back from the war minus a leg. After 20 minutes of
listening to his complaints, my Grandfather rose and made for the
door, saying in passing, "Well, what the hell are you crying for -
you've still got the other one haven't you?" That's about as close to
heartfelt sympathy as I have ever heard from any Borderer I've known!

Generally speaking, the Lowland Scots are blunt, quick to anger, slow
to forgive and utterly contemptuous of weakness. It's not surprising;
their history is one of beating off England, often against desperate
odds.

They have their heroines too; Black Agnes of Dunbar, aka Lady Agnes
Randolph, was a feisty lady who was hell bent and determined that no
sniveling English King would deprive her of her property.

On January 13, 1338, English soldiers headed by William Montague, the
Earl of Salisbury, arrived outside the gates of Castle Dunbar (near
the fallen town of Berwick, which remains in English possession to
this day.) Patrick Dunbar was away, fighting with the Scottish army,
and his wife Lady Agnes had been left in charge. No doubt the Earl
thought this would be an easy victory. He was considered one of the
best and ablest commanders of his day. Alas, he had reckoned without
the valiant Black Agnes.

The lady refused to surrender, and has been attributed as saying in
response to the Earl's request:

"Of Scotland's King I haud my house, (hold)
He pays me meat and fee, (rent)
And I will keep my gude auld house, (good old)
While my house will keep me."

She had only a handful of men left by her husband, but Lady Agnes shut
the castle gates. Whatever the cost, she was determined to stick it
out rather than meekly acquiesce to the hated English enemy. Assuming
the duties of commander, she rallied the tiny garrison to defense, and
inspired all within Castle Dunbar by her example.

The Earl of Salisbury began his engagement with catapults, which
hurled great rocks and lead shot at the walls. When this phase of the
campaign was over, Lady Agnes had her maids dress in their Sunday
best. Led by their mistress to the ramparts, the women boldly dusted
the marks of battle from the stones, thus showing the Earl that they
were not at all concerned. Modern readers may take this as a gesture
equivalent to giving Salisbury "the finger." Lady Agnes would not only
thwart Salisbury's plans, but she intended to do so with as much
insult given to the Earl as possible.

Now the Earl had an ace up his sleeve. He summoned his secret weapon -
a mighty battering ram on wheels, roofed over to protect the soldiers
who rolled it right up to the gate. Lady Agnes also had something up
her sleeve, and it wasn't a lace hanky. She had previously ordered a
whacking great boulder (one of those which Salisbury had used against
the castle) to be saved for just such a contingency. At her signal,
the boulder was dropped over the walls. It struck the roof of the
battering ram, smashing it into smithereens, and causing the enemy to
flee for their lives. As they ran, Black Agnes jeered at them from
high atop the walls of Castle Dunbar.

Twice burned, the Earl was nevertheless determined to do whatever it
took to bring the castle and its formidable lady to their knees -
metaphorically speaking. He changed his plans, thinking that perhaps
intrigue might suit his purposes better than brute force.

Salisbury attempted to bribe the guard who watched the main entrance
of Castle Dunbar, offering the man a substantial fortune if he would
either leave the gate unlocked, or somehow ensure his army could enter
without complication. The guard appeared to accept the bargain, but
the Earl did not know that this man had confessed all to Lady Agnes.

The plot called for Salisbury and a small group of English soldiers to
enter the castle at a certain time. At the fateful hour, observing
that the gate had been opened, the Earl led his forces onward. Upon
reaching the gate, Salisbury was overtaken by one of his men, named
Copeland. As soon as Copeland (who had been mistaken for the Earl),
walked inside, the portcullis clanged shut, trapping the man and
locking him in the castle.

Black Agnes observed all this from the ramparts. As the roundly
defeated Salisbury went back to his encampment, she sneered and mocked
him - "Fare thee well, Montague, I meant that you should have supped
with us, and support us in upholding the castle from the English!"

And the siege continued.

One day, when the Earl was riding around the castle with his
second-in-command, he was spotted by Lady Agnes, who saw a chance to
end matters there and then. She called upon one of her archers, and
bade him kill both men. The arrow barely missed Salisbury, who clapped
heels to his horse's sides and rode hell-for-leather out of range. His
second was not so lucky. The missile went straight into his chest,
penetrating three layers of mail and a thick leather jacket, and
killed him. The Earl was heard to comment sarcastically, "Black Agnes'
love-shafts go straight to the heart!"

Having completely surrounded Castle Dunbar with his forces, Salisbury
thought he might just starve out the defenders. Their supplies were
running low. The Earl smelled victory. However, some of the
townspeople of Dunbar were sympathetic to Lady Agnes' cause, and not
adverse to putting a spoke into English wheels. On a dark and moonless
night, several boats loaded with supplies made their way to the
castle's seaward side - a blind spot in Salisbury's plans. They
relieved the famine with this delivery. The next morning, Lady Agnes
had a fresh loaf of bread and some wine delivered to the Earl with her
compliments, and loudly proclaimed the gift to all within earshot.
Another victory for Black Agnes' side!

The Earl was desperate. Lady Agnes' brother - John Randolph, the Earl
of Moray - had been captured by the English and was a prisoner of war.
Salisbury sent for him and marched the unfortunate man close to the
castle. Making sure that the lady could see and hear everything that
was going on, Salisbury forced Moray to call out to his sister. Moray
told Lady Agnes that Salisbury would kill him if she did not surrender
immediately.

Lady Agnes was not daunted one whit. She pointed out to Salisbury that
if he did, indeed, kill her brother - who had no children or heirs -
then she, herself, would inherit his lands and titles. The Earl,
believing Black Agnes' greed was greater than her love for a sibling,
was frustrated once more. He did not kill Moray, but sent him back to
prison.


(In a side note, the Earl of Moray passed away in 1347 without issue,
leaving all his wealth and title to his sister - the heroic Black
Agnes!) The siege continued for five months, with Black Agnes holding
the upper hand and mocking the English at every turn. Finally,
Alexander Ramsay of Dalhousie - who had been roaming the Scottish
countryside with a band of followers - heard about the gallant lady's
little problem. He decided to aid the defenders.

Ramsay marched to the coast with forty men and acquired two boats.
Under the cover of darkness, they made anchor just offshore from
Castle Dunbar. Ramsay knew he could avoid detection and get into the
castle via a half-submerged gate on the seaward side.

Once within the walls, he mustered the lady's forces and joined them
with his own. Ramsay led a surprise attack through the main gate,
which sent the English scattering in all directions. Disheartened by
this bold maneuver, and probably tired of listening to Black Agnes'
mocking comments, the weary Earl accepted a truce. On June 10, 1338,
he ordered his forces to withdraw, leaving Lady Agnes once more in
sole possession of her castle. As he marched away, Salisbury
supposedly composed a song about the lady who had defeated him,
however there is no proof that he was the actual author.

"She kept a stir in tower and trench,
That brawling, boisterous Scottish wench,
Came I early, came I late
I found Agnes at the gate."

(A ballad attributed to the Earl of Salisbury.)

Lady Agnes died in 1369, leaving behind two sons - George, tenth Earl
of Dunbar and March, and John, Earl of Moray. Her husband, Patrick,
led the Scottish army at the fateful Battle of Durham in October 1346.
He escaped with considerable losses. Patrick Dunbar died just a few
months after his brave lady.

She is called Black Agnes, the Saviour of Dunbar Castle. With
fortitude, courage and iron determination, she held a key defense of
Scotland out of English hands. Outnumbered, outgunned, facing
starvation and worse, Lady Agnes never believed that surrender was an
option. She held out to the bitter end (bitter for the Earl of
Salisbury, anyway), and showed admirable panache. By her valiant
example, kept her people's spirits high, and ultimately came out the
winner.

Lady Agnes Randolph is still honoured in Scotland as a true heroine -
indeed she rather reminds me of one of our more mature lady residents!
(which is why I have written that last sentence with some care!)

Scots went on to become the most innovative people in the world; it
has been claimed that over 50% of patents are held by Scots. They also
created a way of life to live by, a model adopted by most of the
English-speaking world and some who were not, which takes as its base
the concept that whenever one does something good for another with no
expectation of reward; the real reward is the feeling of having done
something worthwhile and thereby expanding the sum of human happiness.

This is put into practice with human rights, freedom from persecution
by the State, the provision of universal health care, unemployment
insurance, the introduction of pensions for the elderly - a Prussian
idea; we must give Chancellor Bismarck his due - and most importantly
in most Scottish minds, the idea that all men are equal and none are
above the law.

We are a tiny country whose population I don't believe has ever
exceeded six million. Yet, we have made an impact on this world out of
all proportion to our numbers, as witness the many acknowledgements of
our contribution, from statues to Sir Alexander Fleming outside
bullrings in Spain - his discovery of penicillin has saved many gored
matadors from death; his very name recalls how Scotland sheltered
Flemish refugees - called Flemings in those days - from religious
persecution - and not forgetting Scotland's protection of Jews since
the early 1300s - to Tartan Day, April 6th, proclaimed by the US
Congress to honour the Scottish contribution to the United States.

Most important of all, despite the ridicule of the English for our
native dress and a countless other insults, we have the world's
respect as honest, decent people - people with immense "Cliù".

And you would deride us, Mr. Michael Kuettner?

Am fear a ghleidheas a theanga, gleidhidh e a charaid.
The man who holds his tongue keeps his friend.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 00:35:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:10:11 -0800, "Billzz"
On 27 Feb 2007 10:15:51 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
Some fool put a Scot on the throne of England and
nothing but trouble ensued.
Yeah, that fool was an Englishman, not a Scot.
James VI of Scotland was an Englishman? Since when?
He's meaning that James was the Scot but it was Englishmen who put him
on
the English throne.
Allan
You can only imagine how confusing this is to your American cousins.
Not unlike all the people who, it now turns out in retrospect,
DEFINITELY didn't vote for George Bush!
: )
You know I've never met a single person who voted for Thatcher either.
Me neither. They must all have died and gone to Hell.

When Mark Thatcher was charged with trying to overthrow Equatorial
Guinea, I wasn't even surprised. Like mother; like son.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Julian Richards
2007-03-02 01:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
When Mark Thatcher was charged with trying to overthrow Equatorial
Guinea, I wasn't even surprised. Like mother; like son.
Really? I was surprised that he could find Equatorial Guinea.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
The Highlander
2007-03-02 06:07:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:24:18 +0000, Julian Richards
Post by Julian Richards
Post by The Highlander
When Mark Thatcher was charged with trying to overthrow Equatorial
Guinea, I wasn't even surprised. Like mother; like son.
Really? I was surprised that he could find Equatorial Guinea.
He paid a taxi driver from Mozambique to get him there...


The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 10:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Richards
Post by The Highlander
When Mark Thatcher was charged with trying to overthrow Equatorial
Guinea, I wasn't even surprised. Like mother; like son.
Really? I was surprised that he could find Equatorial Guinea.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
There is one thing that is certain. In the UK every child that wants to
learn, or has a parent who can pay extra, will get a first class education.
The Scottish Education system has always been better than that of England &
Wales but even so the children of those with money get well educated. BTW:
An English, "Public", school is a school for only the rich who can pay for
it, while in Scotland a public school is one that was set up and run by the
local people. For example Eton and Harrow are English, "Public Schools". In
my village, Kelty, the local primary school is, "Kelty Public School", and
was originally set up with funds from the Unions, most noticeably by the
miners unions. Incidentally the local library was originally set up and run
by the miners and it was in a local community centre called the Morey
Institute funded by the unions also.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-03-02 16:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Julian Richards
Post by The Highlander
When Mark Thatcher was charged with trying to overthrow Equatorial
Guinea, I wasn't even surprised. Like mother; like son.
Really? I was surprised that he could find Equatorial Guinea.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
There is one thing that is certain. In the UK every child that wants to
learn, or has a parent who can pay extra, will get a first class
education. The Scottish Education system has always been better than that
of England & Wales but even so the children of those with money get well
educated. BTW: An English, "Public", school is a school for only the rich
who can pay for it, while in Scotland a public school is one that was set
up and run by the local people. For example Eton and Harrow are English,
"Public Schools". In my village, Kelty, the local primary school is,
"Kelty Public School", and was originally set up with funds from the
Unions, most noticeably by the miners unions. Incidentally the local
library was originally set up and run by the miners and it was in a local
community centre called the Morey Institute funded by the unions also.
Communist Saddam-loving bastards all!
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 23:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Julian Richards
Post by The Highlander
When Mark Thatcher was charged with trying to overthrow Equatorial
Guinea, I wasn't even surprised. Like mother; like son.
Really? I was surprised that he could find Equatorial Guinea.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
There is one thing that is certain. In the UK every child that wants to
learn, or has a parent who can pay extra, will get a first class
education. The Scottish Education system has always been better than that
of England & Wales but even so the children of those with money get well
educated. BTW: An English, "Public", school is a school for only the rich
who can pay for it, while in Scotland a public school is one that was set
up and run by the local people. For example Eton and Harrow are English,
"Public Schools". In my village, Kelty, the local primary school is,
"Kelty Public School", and was originally set up with funds from the
Unions, most noticeably by the miners unions. Incidentally the local
library was originally set up and run by the miners and it was in a local
community centre called the Morey Institute funded by the unions also.
Communist Saddam-loving bastards all!
Err! Considering that the last pit in Kelty closed a long time before Saddam
rose to prominence that would be rather a hard task.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
The Highlander
2007-03-02 00:49:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:10:25 +0530, "William Black"
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
You raise an interesting point.
The central legal aparatus of the United States can overule the state
judiciary but the central judical authority in London has no authority over
the Scotish legal system at all.
That's becauae it was agreed in the Act of Union. Anyway, our legal
system is far superior to yours, which is why yours has been
"borrowing" bits of ours.

For example, because we have 15 jurymen instead of twelve, you can't
get a hung jury. And even if the prosecution can't make a case against
a defendant but it's pretty obvious that he's just lucked out, then
they can bring in a "Not Proven" vedict and leave him with a stain on
his record; an important point with child molesters who usualy don't
commit their crimes in front of witnesses. That means that if the
defendant ever applies for a job involving young children, the Nor
Proven verdict will kill his application on the spot.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
William Black
2007-03-02 07:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
That's becauae it was agreed in the Act of Union. Anyway, our legal
system is far superior to yours, which is why yours has been
"borrowing" bits of ours.
Is this Canada or Scotland we're tralking about here?

Because as far as anyone knows you haven't visited Scotland for decades...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
William Hamblen
2007-03-02 23:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
For example, because we have 15 jurymen instead of twelve, you can't
get a hung jury.
It can only take one to hang a jury in the USA as in most states the
verdict has to be unanimous.

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 00:53:47 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 04:29:53 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Yes. KINGdom - we share a common monarchy and have a treaty of union to
share a parliament,(at the moment).
sorry no
its one Kingdom
Teh kingdom of scotland and the kingdom of england were merged
here is the text of the act
The problem here is the differning uses of the word 'country' itself.
People in the UK generally think of their kingdom being made up of
various
countries and don't restrict the word 'country' to only current
independent
members of the UN etc. We'd look on a country as being a much more
permanent
thing than whatever the political situation of the day is. Hence here a
country can be an independent state or part of an independent state.
Others
often use the word country in a more restricted sense. Hence an
Englishman
is likely to view England as just as much a country as for instance
Paraguay
is. It just happens to be part of a political union with other
countries.
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The difference is that the USA is many states coming together as a country
while the UK is several countries coming together as a State. Then we have
the strange situation where the USA calls itself, "America", but America is
an entire continent made up of many countries.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Two continents. Everyone else in the Americas seems to call los
Estados Unidos "America".
Less cumbersome.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Robert Peffers.
2007-03-02 09:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On 1 Mar 2007 04:29:53 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Yes. KINGdom - we share a common monarchy and have a treaty of union to
share a parliament,(at the moment).
sorry no
its one Kingdom
Teh kingdom of scotland and the kingdom of england were merged
here is the text of the act
The problem here is the differning uses of the word 'country' itself.
People in the UK generally think of their kingdom being made up of
various
countries and don't restrict the word 'country' to only current
independent
members of the UN etc. We'd look on a country as being a much more
permanent
thing than whatever the political situation of the day is. Hence here a
country can be an independent state or part of an independent state.
Others
often use the word country in a more restricted sense. Hence an
Englishman
is likely to view England as just as much a country as for instance
Paraguay
is. It just happens to be part of a political union with other
countries.
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The difference is that the USA is many states coming together as a country
while the UK is several countries coming together as a State. Then we have
the strange situation where the USA calls itself, "America", but America is
an entire continent made up of many countries.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Two continents. Everyone else in the Americas seems to call los
Estados Unidos "America".
Less cumbersome.
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.

The plain fact is that while the USAsians are indeed Americans they are not
the only Americans - they just think they are.
The fact that none of the other Americans want to be associated with being
USAsians is why they do not, generally, claim to be Americans in case they
are mistaken for USAsians.
--
Robert Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
a.spencer3
2007-03-02 11:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.

Surreyman
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 11:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Surreyman
You win the prize. Scottish education indeed.
Renia
2007-03-02 12:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.

Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America

But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 12:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
Renia
2007-03-02 13:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 14:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
Renia
2007-03-02 14:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
Same page:
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 15:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.

I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.

BTW I was there in Hawaii in the early 60s when plate tectonics were
first demonstrated using pictures of lava blocks emulating the
theorized tectonic plates.
a.spencer3
2007-03-02 15:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
BTW I was there in Hawaii in the early 60s when plate tectonics were
first demonstrated using pictures of lava blocks emulating the
theorized tectonic plates.
Yeh - they invented tectonic plates after I'd studied all my Geog!

Surreyman
Renia
2007-03-02 15:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something and
then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia that
I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-02 16:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something and
then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia that
I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Renia
2007-03-02 17:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something
and then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia
that I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
Back in your court. What are the similarities?
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 19:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something
and then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia
that I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
Back in your court. What are the similarities?
Well, to start with they both occupy the same continent. There are
Asians in Europe, as defined, and Eurps in Asia (Turkey wants to be
both).
Renia
2007-03-02 21:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something
and then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia
that I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
Back in your court. What are the similarities?
Well, to start with they both occupy the same continent. There are
Asians in Europe, as defined, and Eurps in Asia (Turkey wants to be
both).
We have already discussed the continental plate.

What are the cultural similarities?
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-02 21:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people
refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something
and then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia
that I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
Back in your court. What are the similarities?
Well, to start with they both occupy the same continent. There are
Asians in Europe, as defined, and Eurps in Asia (Turkey wants to be
both).
We have already discussed the continental plate.
What are the cultural similarities?
Interesting, I had always thought that 'continent' was based on the
latin terra continens which means 'continuous land'. If it's a cultural
thing then why isn't France a separate continent?
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Renia
2007-03-02 21:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people
refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others
refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something
and then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia
that I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
Back in your court. What are the similarities?
Well, to start with they both occupy the same continent. There are
Asians in Europe, as defined, and Eurps in Asia (Turkey wants to be
both).
We have already discussed the continental plate.
What are the cultural similarities?
Interesting, I had always thought that 'continent' was based on the
latin terra continens which means 'continuous land'. If it's a cultural
thing then why isn't France a separate continent?
You're a bit late on parade. We are wondering why Europe and Asia have
been considered as two continents for that very reason. I've suggested
that perhaps this is for cultural reasons.

Do keep up.
Cory Bhreckan
2007-03-03 03:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Cory Bhreckan
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people
refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others
refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
In some countries, the Americas are combined into one continent.
I find that hard to believe, but on the other hand we have had some
demostration of the Scottish version of 1066 and all That.
That's what I mean. People come up with one definition of something
and then the modern world tries to change it and argues about it.
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will buy Eurasia based on the single plate idea, but point out that
North America and South America have their own separate plates.
Historically, there is so little in common between Europe and Asia
that I cannot buy Eurasia, regardless of plates.
What are the differences?
Back in your court. What are the similarities?
Well, to start with they both occupy the same continent. There are
Asians in Europe, as defined, and Eurps in Asia (Turkey wants to be
both).
We have already discussed the continental plate.
What are the cultural similarities?
Interesting, I had always thought that 'continent' was based on the
latin terra continens which means 'continuous land'. If it's a
cultural thing then why isn't France a separate continent?
You're a bit late on parade. We are wondering why Europe and Asia have
been considered as two continents for that very reason. I've suggested
that perhaps this is for cultural reasons.
Do keep up.
My dear Renia, of *course* it's not 'cultural', it's plain old racism.
*We* can't live on the same continent as the wogs! It's Piltdown man all
over again. The Suez canal is about 121 miles long while the Panama
Canal is only 51 miles... Africaeurasia?
--
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
D. Spencer Hines
2007-03-02 22:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

I can't believe that several ostensible adults are so bored and so
unimaginative as to have a continuing discussion arguing over how many
Continents there are.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Sheila J
2007-03-03 00:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!
I can't believe that several ostensible adults are so bored and so
unimaginative as to have a continuing discussion arguing over how many
Continents there are.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Seems like a better topic than some of the discussions I have seen here.
Custos Custodum
2007-03-02 21:46:57 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Mar 2007 06:22:07 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Renia
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
cite?
http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryc/g/Continents.htm
that does it for Eurasia now where is the one Americas?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the Olympic logo.

http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_672.pdf
Brian Sharrock
2007-03-02 21:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
This definitely seems to smack of jingoism and somewhat reveals the age of
the posters;:

Europeans were taught that there are _five_ continents (Antarctica being
ignored as it's uninhabited , other than visiting personnel) and the Olympic
Flag has five circles to represent the five inhabited continents. However
USA-ians (since 1950) have preferred to isolate themselves from South
America ,and pretend that's America is divided into North America and South
America.

<wikipedia>
From the mid-19th century, United States atlases more commonly treated North
and South America as separate continents, while atlases published in Europe
usually considered them one continent. However it was still not uncommon for
United States atlases to treat them as one continent up till World War
II.[40] The Olympic flag, devised in 1913, has five rings representing the
five inhabited, participating continents, with America being treated as one
continent and Antarctica not included[18].

From the 1950s, most United States geographers divided America in two[40] -
consistent with modern understanding of geology and plate tectonics. With
the addition of Antarctica, this made the seven-continent model. However,
this division of America never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself
spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of
six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries.

</wikipedia>
--
Brian
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 21:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Sharrock
Post by The Highlander
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Robert Peffers.
Post by Robert Peffers.
Two continents?
They teach that there are five continents.
Europe.
Asia.
America.
Australia.
Africa.
They taught me 7 - S. America & Antarctica.
Yup.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
But of course, as ever, the goalposts are changing. Some people refer to
Eurasia (Europe and Asia) as as a single continent and others refer to
America as a single continent.
This definitely seems to smack of jingoism and somewhat reveals the age of
Europeans were taught that there are _five_ continents (Antarctica being
ignored as it's uninhabited , other than visiting personnel) and the Olympic
Flag has five circles to represent the five inhabited continents. However
USA-ians (since 1950) have preferred to isolate themselves from South
America ,and pretend that's America is divided into North America and South
America.
<wikipedia>
From the mid-19th century, United States atlases more commonly treated North
and South America as separate continents, while atlases published in Europe
usually considered them one continent. However it was still not uncommon for
United States atlases to treat them as one continent up till World War
II.[40] The Olympic flag, devised in 1913, has five rings representing the
five inhabited, participating continents, with America being treated as one
continent and Antarctica not included[18].
From the 1950s, most United States geographers divided America in two[40] -
consistent with modern understanding of geology and plate tectonics. With
the addition of Antarctica, this made the seven-continent model. However,
this division of America never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself
spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of
six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries.
</wikipedia>
--
Brian
Oh, a Wikipedia cite, how could I have not seen that!
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:04:23 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 06:16:43 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Yes. KINGdom - we share a common monarchy and have a treaty of union to
share a parliament,(at the moment).
sorry no
its one Kingdom
Teh kingdom of scotland and the kingdom of england were merged
here is the text of the act
The problem here is the differning uses of the word 'country' itself.
People in the UK generally think of their kingdom being made up of various
countries and don't restrict the word 'country' to only current independent
members of the UN etc. We'd look on a country as being a much more permanent
thing than whatever the political situation of the day is. Hence here a
country can be an independent state or part of an independent state. Others
often use the word country in a more restricted sense. Hence an Englishman
is likely to view England as just as much a country as for instance Paraguay
is. It just happens to be part of a political union with other countries.
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
I was thinking of the original revolutionary states.

I presume that Texas was the US's first land grab.

Thinking of which I noticed yesterday that the military in Iraq are
now forecasting another Saigon-style bug-out in six months or less..

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-02 12:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hamblen
On 1 Mar 2007 06:16:43 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
"For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed." - William Topaz McGonagall
Yes. KINGdom - we share a common monarchy and have a treaty of union to
share a parliament,(at the moment).
sorry no
its one Kingdom
Teh kingdom of scotland and the kingdom of england were merged
here is the text of the act
The problem here is the differning uses of the word 'country' itself.
People in the UK generally think of their kingdom being made up of various
countries and don't restrict the word 'country' to only current independent
members of the UN etc. We'd look on a country as being a much more permanent
thing than whatever the political situation of the day is. Hence here a
country can be an independent state or part of an independent state. Others
often use the word country in a more restricted sense. Hence an Englishman
is likely to view England as just as much a country as for instance Paraguay
is. It just happens to be part of a political union with other countries.
Rather like the United States of America, to my mind. People call them
states, but a state is a country.
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still have
many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or not; the
power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not unlike
Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries, once
and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about only
when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union they
had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
I was thinking of the original revolutionary states.
I presume that Texas was the US's first land grab.
Thinking of which I noticed yesterday that the military in Iraq are
now forecasting another Saigon-style bug-out in six months or less..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Vermont first, then "buying" Louisiana, Texas was broke and wanted
someone to cover their debts, we got the rest of NA up to 49 for the
price of the first year of California gold extraction.

That "bug-out" would be a duet, the Brits are already doing the act.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:08:50 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 07:28:49 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still
have many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or
not; the power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not
unlike Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a'
Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily
those of The Highlander.
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries,
once and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about
only when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union
they had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
actually its a bit more complicated than that.
The Treaty of Paris called them sovereign states by name, noting that
they were "united" in some unspecified form
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz.,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
This reflected the 1781 articles of confederation
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by
this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
assembled.
I think that makes my point. And I didn't even have to read the "South
was right", which I wouldn't have done anyway, as my personal feeling
is that were I to give the US an enema, the south is probably where
I'd stick it in.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league
of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of
their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding
themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
Our constitutional theory is that the states were sovereign at that time
, but that the people in the United states created the nation.
So states never "joined" the United States as states. The inhabitants of
the 13 original colonies that had achieved sovereignty created the
"United States of America" and allocated sovereignty between the former
colonies and the Federal government.
Vince
Where does that leave, say, Florida, which was bought later? Not to
mention Louisiana, Arkansas.
The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:10:12 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 07:28:49 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
They were separate countries, technically and actually. One by one
they joined the United States. But you can see that they still
have many of the attributes of countries; the power to execute, or
not; the power to tax, and their own separate legal systems - not
unlike Scotland and England..
The Highlander
Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns an post seo agus beachdan a'
Ghàidheil. The views expressed in this post are not necessarily
those of The Highlander.
Please go read something besides the "South was right". The Civil War
settled the idea of whether the colonies were separate countries,
once and for all. The idea of them being separate nations came about
only when the Southern states looked for an excuse to leave a union
they had voluntarily joined. Not to mention places like Alabama,
Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida and
Texas that had been admitted under the Constitution, and had never
been "separate"/
actually its a bit more complicated than that.
The Treaty of Paris called them sovereign states by name, noting that
they were "united" in some unspecified form
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz.,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free
sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and
for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the
government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part
thereof.
This reflected the 1781 articles of confederation
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by
this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress
assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league
of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of
their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding
themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion,
sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
Our constitutional theory is that the states were sovereign at that time
, but that the people in the United states created the nation.
So states never "joined" the United States as states. The inhabitants of
the 13 original colonies that had achieved sovereignty created the
"United States of America" and allocated sovereignty between the former
colonies and the Federal government.
Vince
Where does that leave, say, Florida, which was bought later? Not to
mention Louisiana, Arkansas.
Seems as though I know more about your country than you do...

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:12:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:26:15 GMT, "a.spencer3"
[snip]
He's meaning that James was the Scot but it was Englishmen who put
him
on
the English throne.
Allan
You can only imagine how confusing this is to your American cousins.
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
Andrew Swallow
I thought it was the United Kingdum
Now you are bringing in Ireland. Another story.
Andrew Swallow
Err! No again!
The full title is, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern
Ireland",
so, "The UK", and, "The UK & NI", are two different things. Of course we
also have, "Great Britain", and "Great Britain & Northern Ireland", also
The British Isles. Not to mention the protectorates and Principalities.
--
I always understood that it was "The United Kingdom of Great Britain ...PLUS
(Northern) Ireland". e.g. not uniting GB & Ireland?
Surreyman
Northern Ireland is a province of Great Britain, period.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:15:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:03:24 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Hilarious!
Pogue Linthicum is flaunting his ignorance again -- Big Time.
DSH
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
Andrew Swallow
I thought it was the United Kingdum [sic]
Oh, that's frightfully witty! You're not Henny Youngman using an alias
by any chance, are you?

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:20:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:51:09 -0000, "allan connochie"
England and Scotland were separate countries which spent their time
fighting wars against each other. Peace was finally arranged by
inviting the King of Scotland (James the sixth) to also be the King
of England. The combined kingdom became known as Great Briton.
While James may have spoken English with a broad accent, his family tree
certainly presents him as diluted Scots, at best.
The monarchs of course often married into other European royalty but all the
same on his royal maternal line James could trace his direct Scottish line
back well over half a millenium. Likewise on his paternal line the family
were Stewarts and Douglases. He was also born, brought up in Scotland, and
ruled Scotland for a long time before taking the English throne too. It is
silly to suggest he wasn't Scottish.
Allan
I agree 100%.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 01:26:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:11:53 +1000, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
I promised I would;
I do think your daughter was trying to help
Yeah - herself.
I think her action was self-centred and outrageous - and that's not even to
mention illegal in the common sense.
Death is like that
hard
but do not lose a daughter over it.
It's the daughter who lost the father, in my opinion, by showing she
couldn't be trusted to honour a promise.
A promise is a promise.
I would have done the same. Without honour we are merely ashes.
Precisely my own conclusions in every respect.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 02:06:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:44:45 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Cite & Quotation?
DSH
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
1,220,000 hits on Google for Scottish National War Museum. Where I
read it, God only knows.

http://thumpingthetub.blogspot.com/
However, here's a claim by a blogger that only 27% of the Scots that
fought were killed as opposed to the 12% total for the UK as a whole .
110,000 Scots dead in WWI, 15% of the total British war dead, higher
in proportionate terms than for any other country in the Empire.

More than half the SAS are Scots. David Stirling the founder was and
so of course was my uncle and my old headmaster. In those days it was
called the Long Range Desert Group and fought in North Africa behind
enemy lines. Today it's called Mobility, but they still specialise in
vehicle insertion techniques. If memory served, it was 10th Mobility
which fought in Dhofar and were trapped and nearly wiped out.

The US Army 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1st
SFOD-D (A)), commonly referred to as Delta Force, was based on the
SAS. Its founder, "Chargin'" Charlie Beckwith, having served on
exchange with the SAS in the early 1960s, caught the "SAS bug" and,
recognising a void in the US Army, devoted a large part of the
remainder of his career to the raising and establishment of a US
Special Forces unit modelled on the SAS.

Operational Detachment-Delta is a late addition to the Special Forces,
whose main purpose is to lead locally recruited troops in a manner
pioneered by the Jedburgh teams of WW2, a joint British-American
effort which worked with the French, Dutch and Belgian resistance.

Scots make up about 9% of the UK. The UK population is 60,609,153 at
the last census so (quick calculation) the Scots are about 545 million
which sounds about right.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
a.spencer3
2007-03-02 09:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by The Highlander
Scots make up about 9% of the UK. The UK population is 60,609,153 at
the last census so (quick calculation) the Scots are about 545 million
which sounds about right.
What was that you were claiming about Scottish education?

Surreyman
a.spencer3
2007-03-02 09:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by The Highlander
More than half the SAS are Scots. David Stirling the founder was and
so of course was my uncle and my old headmaster. In those days it was
called the Long Range Desert Group and fought in North Africa behind
enemy lines. Today it's called Mobility, but they still specialise in
vehicle insertion techniques. If memory served, it was 10th Mobility
which fought in Dhofar and were trapped and nearly wiped out.
I'd be interested in your rather faulty source re the SAS.
The LRDG preceded and was entirely seperate from SAS.
If my memory serves, it was 22 Reg SAS in Dhofar.
As to 50% being Scots ..... well ..... source please!

Surreyman
The Highlander
2007-03-02 02:07:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:14:51 GMT, "a.spencer3"
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
Just answered that to Hines in my last post.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
a.spencer3
2007-03-02 09:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:14:51 GMT, "a.spencer3"
Scotland has always been a hard country - the Scottish War Museum
estimates that two-thirds of all young Scotsmen living at the start of
WW1 died in the trenches.
Source & statistics?
Surreyman
Just answered that to Hines in my last post.
No you didn't.

Surreyman
The Highlander
2007-03-02 03:35:48 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:58:23 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Sad Indeed.
How long ago did this happen?
Four years ago.
DSH
I'm exhausted after all that! It's like my life-long battle trying to
make the kids understand that just because my possessions aren't
nailed down, it doesn't mean they're automatically theirs to take home
with them.
I'm not joking! Before my wife died, she asked me to keep her ashes
and when I died, to have myself cremated and my ashes added to hers;
with instructions to our survivors to scatter them in the Fraser
River, so that part of us will stay in Canada and part will go home to
Scotland on the tide, but at worst we'll be near each other through
Eternity.
I promised I would; a death bed promise that MUST be kept if there is
any honour in me at all, and therefore a promise that should never be
given lightly, because the dying person has no recourse if you decide
not to bother. I understood that it was her last attempt not to lose
me, so I swore on a sgian dubh (Highland knife), an old Highland
custom she insisted on to be sure I would do as she requested. The
belief is that if you swear insincerely, as you kiss the blade to seal
the promise, it will bury itself deep in your throat.
I even have a picture of that; a MacGregor, standing by a gravestone
and presumably swearing revenge for whoever lies beneath it.
http://members.shaw.ca/rumach/MacGregor.htm
So damn me if one day one of our girls didn't walk out the door with
my wife's ashes in her hand. I stopped her and asked, "Where are you
going with that?"
"I'm going to dump Mum's ashes," she said. "I want closure. You
keeping them in the house is weird."
"I keep them here because they're safe with me", I said, and she said
sneeringly, "Still protecting her, are you? A bunch of ashes isn't
going to bring her back, you know!"
I grabbed them back. "You know what I promised her!" I told her. She
said, "Well she's dead now so what does it matter? I want closure and
that's that!"
I was truly shocked; I told her, "I'll give you closure; get out and
close my door behind you, and don't come back to this house until I
invite you to!"
She has never been back, because I no longer trust her not to take
them again and dump them in a dumpster or wherever while I'm asleep.
It was a pact between my wife and I and I'll not lightly break it. My
best friend has sworn that, God willing, he guarantees that my wife's
request will be honoured.
Sad, na?
The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
The Highlander
2007-03-02 05:25:25 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Mar 2007 06:27:30 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
I was right, you don't know do you?
James almost missed the English throne because he was a foreigner.
The 1547 will of Henry VIII debarred his Scottish relatives from the
throne.
After Essex, James champion at court, was executed, James had to start
again, rebuilding his party of supporters at the English court.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth lay dying, her privy council was taking every
precaution to ensure stability. Cecil prudently prepared the
proclamation announcing the transfer of the Crown and sent it north
for the king's approval. His elder half-brother Thomas Cecil was lord
president of the council in the north, a key post facilitating
contacts with Edinburgh. The ports were closed, and extra watchmen
reinforced by local householders patrolled throughout London. Leading
Catholics were kept under surveillance, as was Lady Arbella Stuart, in
semi-captivity at Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire.
Arabella was English, and had as good a claim to the throne as the
foreigner, James.
The speed and ease of the unchallenged transition aroused some
astonishment. Even Cecil confessed that it had gone better than he
expected. 'We are now so strangely and unexpectedly made the spectacle
of happiness and felicity' he mused to the English ambassador in
Paris.
Once the strongest candidate for the English throne, James VI, had
clandestinely joined forces with the most influential English privy
councillor, Robert Cecil, all other possibilities were deliberately
closed off.
Cecil's proclamation announced that James was king 'by Law, by Lineal
succession, and undoubted Right'. But he was also king by prior
arrangement.
TEXT
'The translation of a monarchy': The Accession of James VI and I,
1601-1603
In June 1603, just after the accession of James I, the Venetian
ambassador in London was chatting to Lord Kinloss, a Scottish nobleman
and royal confidant. Kinloss mentioned the anxieties the king endured
before coming to the English throne, but added 'by a Divine miracle
all has gone well'. James himself was convinced that his safe arrival
on the throne formerly occupied by Queen Elizabeth was literally God-
designed, in order to bring the two realms of England and Scotland
closer together. However, for all the talk about miracles, the reality
was more prosaic.
In the early hours of 24 March 1603, Elizabeth I died at Richmond. The
'Virgin Queen' made no explicit provision for an heir, fearing that
she might encourage faction within her kingdom. Yet James VI of
Scotland was smoothly proclaimed as the new king. There was no
opposition, but equally no immediate celebration. The London diarist
John Manningham slyly noted that the proclamation was met with 'silent
joye, noe great shouting', although there were bonfires and bell-
ringing that evening as the announcement sank in. Three days later in
Edinburgh, the king himself received the news with exultation.
James was Elizabeth's nearest royal relative; both were direct
descendants of Henry VII, the first Tudor king. Yet in English law
James's claim was uncertain. Since 1351, foreigners were forbidden to
inherit English lands, which might block James from inheriting the
Crown and its estates. The parliamentary succession statute of 1544
mentioned no heir after Elizabeth and her children (if any), while the
1547 will of Henry VIII debarred his Scottish relatives from the
throne. More recently a statute of 1585 insisted that if any claimants
should conspire against Elizabeth, all their legal rights were
forfeited. Mary Queen of Scots had been executed in 1587 for her
involvement in Catholic assassination plots against Elizabeth. As
Mary's son and potential beneficiary of her actions, was James
compromised?
The king had a cousin, Lady Arbella Stuart, another Scottish
descendant of Henry VII but English-born. Exempt from the 1351 aliens
statute, Arbella might be a serious contender. The wild card was the
Infanta Isabella, daughter of Philip II of Spain and married to her
cousin the Archduke Albert, with whom, after 1599, she ruled over
Spanish Flanders. In Armada year, 1588, Philip proclaimed that his
daughter's descent from Edward III made her the rightful queen of
England. Isabella was dangerously close at hand in Brussels, and James
was agitated by the possibility that she might re-assert that 1588
claim and urge English Catholics to rise and support her.
However, James had the great advantage of being a proven monarch.
Emerging from his long minority, he steadily gained control over both
the Scottish kirk and the nobility. His flexible but tenacious pursuit
of his aims revitalised Scottish kingship. As Edinburgh steadily
extended effective government into the distant Highlands and Western
Islands, James enjoyed a rising reputation in Europe.
Among the Englishmen turning northward as Elizabeth aged was the young
earl of Essex, after 1589 her favourite, who secretly committed
himself to James. By 1601, however, Essex had lost Elizabeth's favour
and after a chaotic revolt in London he was tried and executed. This
was a blow to the king's hopes. Essex was popular, and as a privy
councillor he was an ideal informant on English policy. Now James had
to start again, rebuilding his party of supporters at the English
court.
James was already showing signs of frustration as Elizabeth remained
obdurately silent on the succession. Consumed by his ambition to
succeed her, he was angered at being treated with condescension as a
beginner in the arts of kingship. He even asked his Scottish subjects
to sign a General Band (bond) for the maintenance of his title to
England, though without prejudice to the rights of Elizabeth in her
lifetime. However, in June 1600 the Scottish estates ridiculed any
suggestion of taking the English throne by force. Then, in August
1600, the king was embroiled in the Gowrie plot, when an attempt was
apparently made against his life. This murky episode seemed to point
to rising tensions between James and his leading nobles that might
revive political instability.
Dustjacket, Croft, King James In England, after the death of Lord
Burghley in 1598, his son Sir Robert Cecil was the queen's principal
secretary of state and most influential privy councillor. Essex's
rebellion convinced Cecil that the succession must be settled before
Elizabeth's death. It was too risky to leave the matter open, since
further tumults could destabilise both England and Scotland. In April
1601 James sent two envoys south, to repair the damage in relations
caused by Essex's revolt, and Cecil indicated his willingness to co-
operate. An exchange of letters began, but a secret correspondence
with a foreign monarch was a treasonable offence. Cecil was risking
his career and perhaps his life, so the letters were partly encoded;
Cecil was '10', Elizabeth was '24', James was '30'. The king was
reassured by his new-found alliance with the secretary and promised
that he would not aim for the English throne except through his firm
amity with the queen. He put aside any thoughts of intervention and
Cecil ensured that a substantial increase was added to the English
pension which James already received. Elizabeth wrote to him in May
1601, indicating he would get an extra £2,000 per annum, but that
these 'offices of extraordinary charge and kindness' would only
continue while they were 'both thankfully accepted and and sincerely
requited and deserved'. It seems likely that she understood that Cecil
was negotiating with James. Even though Elizabeth refused to
acknowledge him openly, he was her most suitable heir and in her
letters she addressed him as 'dearest brother and cousin'.
Between 1601 and 1603, Elizabeth continued her annual routine of a
short summer progress and Christmas revels. She was sixty-nine on 7
September 1602. A play was performed before her at court in March
1603; in London the theatre was flourishing as never before. Then she
began to sink, refusing food and finally taking to her bed. John
Manningham learned from one of her chaplains that her death was
'mildly like a lambe, easily like a ripe apple from the tree'.
Meanwhile her privy council was taking every precaution to ensure
stability. Cecil prudently prepared the proclamation announcing the
transfer of the Crown and sent it north for the king's approval. His
elder half-brother Thomas Cecil was lord president of the council in
the north, a key post facilitating contacts with Edinburgh. The ports
were closed, and extra watchmen reinforced by local householders
patrolled throughout London. Leading Catholics were kept under
surveillance, as was Lady Arbella Stuart, in semi-captivity at
Hardwick Hall in Derbyshire. There was no trouble at home and no sign
of any foreign forces supporting the archduchess. Neither the
unmarried Arbella nor the childless Isabella enjoyed much support.
After forty years of spinster rule, a male monarch offered a welcome
return to normality. James was a married man with children - two boys
and a girl - and his young family promised longterm dynastic
stability.
On 27 March 1603 King James wrote to Cecil praising him and his fellow-
councillors for their care in overseeing what he described as an
unprecedented event, 'the translation of a monarchy'. On 5 April he
left Edinburgh, optimistically assuring his people that he would
return in three years, and typically borrowing 10,000 Scottish merks
for his travel expenses. He crossed the border at Berwick and
continued south to York, where he delighted the crowd by walking
through the streets to the Minster for the Easter service. The ride
south became a triumphant progress, with James feasting and indulging
his passion for hunting. He thought he was witnessing an outpouring of
spontaneous affection, but the overwhelming public emotion was relief
at the peaceful succession, mixed with natural curiosity.
James also wanted to introduce his ideas on kingship to his English
subjects. His Basilicon Doron, 'the king's book' of advice for his
son, was promptly reprinted in London with a new royal preface. The
publication was almost certainly organised by Cecil. It signalled that
the king was a keen author; a flood of political and theological works
was to follow.
The speed and ease of the unchallenged transition aroused some
astonishment. Even Cecil confessed that it had gone better than he
expected. 'We are now so strangely and unexpectedly made the spectacle
of happiness and felicity' he mused to the English ambassador in
Paris. Sir George Carew, a midlands landowner, reported that 'all men
are exceedingly satisfied and praise God who of his goodness hath so
miraculously provided for us'. Did Cecil smile to himself? Secretly,
the secretary had taken considerable risks and devoted much time and
effort to containing what might have been a major succession crisis.
Once the strongest candidate for the English throne, James VI, had
clandestinely joined forces with the most influential English privy
councillor, Robert Cecil, all other possibilities were deliberately
closed off. Considering the chaos that the disputed succession of
Henri IV had caused only recently in France, the people of both
England and Scotland had occasion for gratitude. Cecil's proclamation
announced that James was king 'by Law, by Lineal succession, and
undoubted Right'. But he was also king by prior arrangement.
http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Elizabeth/index.html
James may have been a foreigner, but he and Arabella were Elizabeth's
only remaining relatives and were both candidates for the throne.

I feel that James' position as King of Scots made him the much better
choice, because the English could use him to control Scotland and
"reform" it. In fact, this was precisely what James did, with his
attempts to stamp our presbyterianism and force Episcopalianism on the
Scottish people.

The Highlander

Faodaidh nach ionann na beachdan anns
an post seo agus beachdan a' Ghàidheil.
The views expressed in this post are
not necessarily those of The Highlander.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2007-03-02 16:18:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:35:28 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Right!
Then we'll get a long whining, wimpering Sassenach lecture from these
ragamuffins about how the Brits should never have been in Iraq in the
First
Place.
aka - the truth. As told by all and sucdry five years ago.

What an ignorant arsehole you truly are.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...