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
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.
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
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...