Act of Settlement under threat

Linky

This is part of Cleggeron's wider programme of removing old laws that restrict civil liberties, with the proposal to repeal the Act of Settlement of 1701 being dubbed the 'Freedom Bill'.

Some interesting points...

"Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles, has called for a mass online vote for a change in the law, which he denounced as “state sectarianism”, ahead of the Pope’s visit."

This confirms what I have always said about the overwhelming influence of Catholics and liberal Protestants amongst Scottish nationalists. Nobody ever believes me but things like this happen time and time again, no surprise really when the earliest Scottish nationalists had such strong links with Sinn Fein and were originally republican in their outlook.

And I predict the Pope will kiss the ground when he enters Scotland, which is of course his symbol of blessing for an independent nation. I will put money on it, it sounds conspiratorial, but the Vatican really does want to break up the Union.

Anyway, IMO this plan to repeal the Act of Settlement is completely illegal, since it is restated as part of the Treaty of Union, which is in turn the foundational document of the United Kingdom. The usual appeal to discrimination doesn't work in this case since the very purpose of the monarchy is that it is outwith the democratic system, it's about birthright not equal opportunity.

As for why Catholics speficially should not be king, I think the fact that they owe allegiance to another temporal power is good enough grounds.

We could have a Catholic monarch soon if this goes ahead, look at Camilla, she married a Catholic and all her children are Catholic, she is high-church Anglican and they could even split to Rome anyway.

Thoughts?

Seems kind of irrelevant in this day and age but I'm not going to miss a golden opportunity to bash the SNP. Basically, my view is that the SNP are a worthless political party. There soul aim, to break up the union, with Alex Salmond seeing himself as some sort of modern day Robert De Bruce is pathetic. Not only because I'm certain that at this point in time, the Scottish people would reject any referendum, but also because it's a fundamentally bad idea. I don't doubt that the SNP will try and shove the independence drivel down the throats of the Scottish people in the future though as it seems they like to wait for favourable economic situations and general good times so they can take credit for the rise of modern Scotland and capitalise on any feel good factor.

Now, the idea of Scottish independence, an awful idea. For over 300 years the Union has brought prosperity to both Scots and Englishmen. Any history book will tell you that before the Union, the Scots were failing to get in the game of early economic globalization and that various ventures in the Americas had mostly resulted in failure. Likewise, the English needed more "planters" for the colonies. Some people like to talk about the separate Scottish identity but the truth is, there is an equal English identity. Both however are dwarfed by a greater British identity. The union is not just part of our history, it represents the bond between two peoples previously separated by war, who joined to form the mightiest entity the world had ever seen and who should now face the modern age together.

The continuous attack on the union by the SNP and other separatists appal me and I personally will renounce any attempt to break up the Untied Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I don't particularly care. I will be happy with a "British Constitution" which invalidates all previous legal documents from the dark ages and after.

Anything important can be included in it, and for non-constitutional matters, have the necessary documents updates and in-line with the proposed constitution.

If it gets rid of the Monarchy, it would be an even bigger plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Now, the idea of Scottish independence, an awful idea. For over 300 years the Union has brought prosperity to both Scots and Englishmen. Any history book will tell you that before the Union, the Scots were failing to get in the game of early economic globalization and that various ventures in the Americas had mostly resulted in failure. Likewise, the English needed more "planters" for the colonies. Some people like to talk about the separate Scottish identity but the truth is, there is an equal English identity. Both however are dwarfed by a greater British identity. The union is not just part of our history, it represents the bond between two peoples previously separated by war, who joined to form the mightiest entity the world had ever seen and who should now face the modern age together.

---

Yes! The nationalist drivel is based on the romanticised rantings of some 19th century noblemen who liked to go to high-class parties in London and show off how 'Scottish' they were, they basically invented a new identity for themselves.

This whole image we are spoonfed of Scotland being oppressed by England is complete garbage. It was Scots who were the first to propose Union with England, with a specifically religious union in the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant, and then a much fuller political union in the 1648 Engagement they signed with Charles II. Scottish tracts of that time refer to themselves and England as Britain's "Israel and Judah", which were of course one people in the Biblical reference, who were meant to be united according to prophecy. Just decades after the Union all Scots and English identified as British.

As for this rise in nationalism, I blame immigrants. The 19th century Irish immigrants to be specific, they make up around 20% of the population and are disproportionately involved in politics, so they have really changed the nature of national identity here. People like myself that call themselves British are often told to go home to England. :shrug:

It matters not a jot. We're all under the fascist jackboot of the EU anyway. They are your true Lords and Masters. Get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Linky

This is part of Cleggeron's wider programme of removing old laws that restrict civil liberties, with the proposal to repeal the Act of Settlement of 1701 being dubbed the 'Freedom Bill'.

Some interesting points...

"Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles, has called for a mass online vote for a change in the law, which he denounced as “state sectarianism”, ahead of the Pope’s visit."

This confirms what I have always said about the overwhelming influence of Catholics and liberal Protestants amongst Scottish nationalists. Nobody ever believes me but things like this happen time and time again, no surprise really when the earliest Scottish nationalists had such strong links with Sinn Fein and were originally republican in their outlook.

And I predict the Pope will kiss the ground when he enters Scotland, which is of course his symbol of blessing for an independent nation. I will put money on it, it sounds conspiratorial, but the Vatican really does want to break up the Union.

Anyway, IMO this plan to repeal the Act of Settlement is completely illegal, since it is restated as part of the Treaty of Union, which is in turn the foundational document of the United Kingdom. The usual appeal to discrimination doesn't work in this case since the very purpose of the monarchy is that it is outwith the democratic system, it's about birthright not equal opportunity.

As for why Catholics speficially should not be king, I think the fact that they owe allegiance to another temporal power is good enough grounds.

We could have a Catholic monarch soon if this goes ahead, look at Camilla, she married a Catholic and all her children are Catholic, she is high-church Anglican and they could even split to Rome anyway.

Thoughts?

---

So what get over it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

So what get over it

---

If I am made a stranger in my own country I won't just "get over it", in fact it's not even the Catholic monarch bit that annoys me most, it's the fact that these nationalists are once again changing everything this country means, this time by pushing legislation which is clearly illegal according to the very document that founded the state.

IMO all Scottish nationalists should "go home" as they say to me, go home to Ireland where their identity come from, bye bye at Stranraer... but for some reason if I said that it would be racist, but the reverse isn't true when they say it to me, I guess I can thank the elites of civil society (nationalist stronghold) for that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As for why Catholics speficially should not be king, I think the fact that they owe allegiance to another temporal power is good enough grounds.

---

would the current royal family also be removed since they may have allegiances to Germany?

not that I care....just funny to point it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If I am made a stranger in my own country I won't just "get over it", in fact it's not even the Catholic monarch bit that annoys me most, it's the fact that these nationalists are once again changing everything this country means, this time by pushing legislation which is clearly illegal according to the very document that founded the state.

IMO all Scottish nationalists should "go home" as they say to me, go home to Ireland where their identity come from, bye bye at Stranraer... but for some reason if I said that it would be racist, but the reverse isn't true when they say it to me, I guess I can thank the elites of civil society (nationalist stronghold) for that...

---

Unbelievable where do you come up with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Unbelievable where do you come up with this

---

It's just reality, I know people find it shocking but they just need to get over themselves and the liberal consensus.

Really what have I said that is wrong? Did or did not the early Scottish nationalist get their inspiration from Irish republicans? Does or does not the SNP get disproportionate support in Catholic (built on Irish immigration) areas? Do or do not the socialist parties going back to the early Catholic dominated ILP oppose the Union and support a united Ireland as well? Did or did not the Pope kiss the ground in his 1982 visit to Scotland, showing Vatican support for an independent Scottish state and breaking up the Union?

You know the answers, I know it can be shocking at first but look past the taboos, it's liberating!

Interesting so the reverse would be a person can come to Ireland and claim British heritage for himself and through this distort the politics over here however but it's not allowed back in the homeplace.

hmm very interesting indeed

Quote:

---

Did or did not the Pope kiss the ground in his 1982 visit to Scotland, showing Vatican support for an independent Scottish state and breaking up the Union?

---

:laugh4: If Benedict manages to kiss the ground at 83 he should get a round of appaluse.

It is precisely this kind of silly rubbish about conspiracies and the like that make the rest of UK laugh at places like Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Me I am gonna stay in the 21st century it's way cooler here there is DVD's and computer games with cool graphics, oven chips and the wonder of wonders the Internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Interesting so the reverse would be a person can come to Ireland and claim British heritage for himself and through this distort the politics over here however but it's not allowed back in the homeplace.

hmm very interesting indeed

---

Cuchullain was defending Ulster from Irish attacks thousands of years ago, we were these first!

OK just kidding you know I'm not that unreasonable from the Irish issues I talked about with you before, the Ulster Plantations were a whole different kettle of fish to 19th century Irish immigration in the other direction. For a start the early plantations were built on the crappiest uninhabited land and improved, why would the locals get angry about that. Plus there was no culture war with the actual settlers, most people don't realise they actually came almost entirely from Galloway, the last bastion of Gaeldom below the Highland line, they intermarried and got on fine. Why should they have any less right to claim native status than the Old English that they used to say were more Gaelic than the Gaels, or the Norse that built half of the Republics towns, or the Belgae tribesmen, or the Goidils that supposedly came over with Mil of Spain?

Because if you really want to go all the way back, the earliest people would be... the Cruithin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

It is precisely this kind of silly rubbish about conspiracies and the like that make the rest of UK laugh at places like Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Me I am gonna stay in the 21st century it's way cooler here there is DVD's and computer games with cool graphics, oven chips and the wonder of wonders the Internet.

---

Just don't take my place, I love it here. The problem is some nationalists don't realise this isnt' the 13th century, we aren't fighting the English anymore, they need to take at look at their passport because it seems they are a citizens of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", looks like the Huns were the ones at home all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Because if you really want to go all the way back, the earliest people would be... the Cruithin!

---

I always like to remenber Michael Noonans reply to Ken Macginnis about this whole scotii/pict thingy "Not this old thing again ye will have us looking for Leprechauns under the table next"

Most west of Ireland people are still more Basque than Celtic we are who we always were with very little change in between.

As far as Scot independence goes tis a matter for Scottish voters I cant see a change there might be now that is a might be a change in the no Catholic Monarch bit it aint too out there.


It's late I will talk more on this tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I always like to remenber Michael Noonans reply to Ken Macginnis about this whole scotii/pict thingy "Not this old thing again ye will have us looking for Leprechauns under the table next"

Most west of Ireland people are still more Basque than Celtic we are who we always were with very little change in between.

---

Don't get me wrong I don't buy into the whole Cruithin thing, I just think that it is no more of a myth than the idea republicans have of a 'Celtic' Ireland being separate from Britain, likewise there is the Scottish nationalist myth of 'Celtic' Scotland being oppressed by England.

heh some of the pseudo-history I've seen in loyalist literature is completely conflicting. One guy said the Picts of Scotland and Ulster of Cruithin were one people, and that the Gaelic kingdom of Dalriada that established itself in Scotland in the 6th century was one of barbarous Gaelic invaders that drove out the Cruithin in Ulster.

Then another guy said that actually Dalriada was ethnically Germanic and built on older Cruithin and not the Gaels that supplanted them, and that the Dalriadic kingdom in Scotland showed the historic connections between Scotland/Ulster and shows they are one people.

And that's not going into the really far flung theories, like Scots/Ulster-Scots being descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel, that idea is bizarrely mainstream, was an article about some DUP guy in the BBC recently that believed in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

As far as Scot independence goes tis a matter for Scottish voters I cant see a change there might be now that is a might be a change in the no Catholic Monarch bit it aint too out there.

---

IMO it would be more fair to leave it to the British people as a whole, after all the funding Scotland has received it seems unfair to back out and flee to Europe's subsidies instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If I am made a stranger in my own country I won't just "get over it", in fact it's not even the Catholic monarch bit that annoys me most, it's the fact that these nationalists are once again changing everything this country means, this time by pushing legislation which is clearly illegal according to the very document that founded the state.

IMO all Scottish nationalists should "go home" as they say to me, go home to Ireland where their identity come from, bye bye at Stranraer... but for some reason if I said that it would be racist, but the reverse isn't true when they say it to me, I guess I can thank the elites of civil society (nationalist stronghold) for that...

---

hear hear!

the idea that the act of settlement should be abolished on the grounds of equality and discrimination is also bollox, you cannot reasonably describe as discrimination that will effect the population a policy that prevents one person from being from only one religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I don't particularly care. I will be happy with a "British Constitution" which invalidates all previous legal documents from the dark ages and after.

---

lots of countries has shiny constitutional documents expressing all kinds of happy and nice sentiments, but many of them still periodically try to butcher each other in the most spectactular fashion, this is largely because their political sentiment is nothing more than words, with no deep association with their shared social and cultural history.

I for one would be deeply sad to see the historical roots of our 1300 year old demand for representative governance thrown out the window:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot

or for that matter the deep historical understanding of the rights and duties of man stemming from 800 year old legal contract:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

or its 400 year old improvement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_of_Right

or the 320 year old tradition of the supremacy of parliament in the form of constitutional monarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Without that link a constitution is nothing more than words on paper, and there are reasons in addition to geography that are cause for the joyous fact of our unparalleled social stability!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the idea that the act of settlement should be abolished on the grounds of equality and discrimination is also bollox, you cannot reasonably describe as discrimination that will effect the population a policy that prevents one person from being from only one religion.

---

A head of state should not be picked on religous grounds fullstop Furunculus it is the very essence of discrimination and should be scrapped.

By the way it is not bollix some people take this stuff real serious and they have as it were toxified the political discourse in my country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lots of countries has shiny constitutional documents expressing all kinds of happy and nice sentiments, but many of them still periodically try to butcher each other in the most spectactular fashion, this is largely because their political sentiment is nothing more than words, with no deep association with their shared social and cultural history.

I for one would be deeply sad to see the historical roots of our 1300 year old demand for representative governance thrown out the window:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot

---

I don't mean thrown out the window, put them in a museum (if they already were not). I have an appreciation for our historical roots, but somethings it is good to simply clear out the system, so it is all new, sparkly, etc. For example, I would love to clear it all out, do a Constitution with a bunch of associated Bills on related issues that need to be covered and make Parliament there only to make decisions and not constantly draft new laws when they will not be needed.

Perhaps because a need for reform and revolution of the system in place, it is drives me crazy. Like the bunch of aspects which were 'half-done' or simply ill-thought out (like our policy on immigration) or the current state of devolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

A head of state should not be picked on religous grounds fullstop Furunculus it is the very essence of discrimination and should be scrapped.

By the way it is not bollix some people take this stuff real serious and as a result they have as it were toxified the political discourse in my country.

---

I have no problem with Act of Settlement being replaced, as I already expressed. Though I thought of a really interesting idea, which I bet Furunculus would like as well. Change it so it says "The President/Monarchy shall never be a subject of a greater power".

Not only would it stop those who don't renounce the pope (it wouldn't be based on religion anymore), but also, Furunculus will not be scared of some EU superstate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And that's not going into the really far flung theories, like Scots/Ulster-Scots being descended from the 10 lost tribes of Israel, that idea is bizarrely mainstream, was an article about some DUP guy in the BBC recently that believed in it.

---

Nelson Mccausland DUP

His wiki page

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I have no problem with Act of Settlement being replaced, as I already expressed. Though I thought of a really interesting idea, which I bet Furunculus would like as well. Change it so it says "The President/Monarchy shall never be a subject of a greater power".

Not only would it stop those who don't renounce the pope (it wouldn't be based on religion anymore), but also, Furunculus will not be scared of some EU superstate.

---

What do you mean renounce the Pope Beskar??????? I am intrigued

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

What do you mean renounce the Pope Beskar??????? I am intrigued

---

Pope would be classified as a 'Greater Power/Authority'.

So what your all really saying is that your all still afeared of us.

I have first and second cousins in UK they ain't never going to be royals but they still are specifically singled out for special mention in your laws it's silly and shows UK to be an immature nation.

The way I see it the Act should be scrapped and replaced with something else it is time to move on laws change. Also why having a Catholic monarch is then construed to threaten the Union mystify's me it did not seem to hamper the English beforehand so why should it be different for the British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I have first and second cousins in UK they ain't never going to be royals but they still are specifically singled out for special mention in your laws it's silly and shows UK to be an immature nation.

---

Why are you upset over something that would never happen anyway?

It is there so the sovereignty of the United Kingdom would not be compromised, hence why it could be updated with the definition I gave, which would make the likes of Furunculus happy. It wouldn't be a 'religious' prosecution.

It would be on the same level as a woman in a burka having to expose their face for an ID check, it is a practicality, not discrimination, only in this case, it doesn't even affect anyone since there are no Catholic royals anyway.

Quote:

---

Why are you upset over something that would never happen anyway?

---

I am not upset I could care less but my relations are now UK citizens why are they actively singled out it's wrong.

Quote:

---

It is there so the sovereignty of the United Kingdom would not be compromised, hence why it could be updated with the definition I gave, which would make the likes of Furunculus happy. It wouldn't be a 'religious' prosecution.

---

Last time I checked many many Heads of state were and are Catholic so as regards sovereignty goes this obviously never has caused a problem or is a problem.

Quote:

---

It would be on the same level as a woman in a burka having to expose their face for an ID check, it is a practicality, not discrimination, only in this case, it doesn't even affect anyone since there are no Catholic royals anyway.

---

This does not explain how it is impractical to have a Catholic monarch

Quote:

---

Only people who are being silly and immature are those using such a stupid argument: "So what your all really saying is that your all still afeared of us." etc etc

---

It is still wrong Beskar and you know it, both you and I have no love for religon but I on the other hand would never accept that a law should be made to exclude certain people.

The main reason I oppose the Act of Settlement is the fact it is a deadly serious piece of toxic legislation that has caused much suffering in my own country.

Even today it is a divisive and dangerous piece of faith based legalism which WILL cause more suffering especially in Northern Ireland in the future of that there is no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Though I thought of a really interesting idea, which I bet Furunculus would like as well. Change it so it says "The President/Monarchy shall never be a subject of a greater power".

---

That does sound like a very good idea actually.

If the Pope was just a spiritual leader it wouldn't matter (two kingdoms and all that), but since he is head of a sovereign state I would be very uncomfortable with my own soveriegn owing him any allegiance, just imagine if a monarch did the same thing with an American President, nobody would argue that would be unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The main reason I oppose the Act of Settlement is the fact it is a deadly serious piece of toxic legislation that has caused much suffering in my own country.

Even today it is a divisive and dangerous piece of faith based legalism which WILL cause more suffering especially in Northern Ireland in the future of that there is no doubt.

---

I'm not sure, some of the more hardcore loyalist people I know are pretty indifferent towards the crown. In the past these types used to be fairly conservative and supported the monarchy and the tradition surrounding it, but now they're all radical and into the far-right etc.

I just can't envision people shooting each other in the name of different monarchs anymore. For King Charles!... nah, can't see it. tbh the whole loyalist cause is too distant from the monarchy and indeed the rest of Britain these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I'm not sure, some of the more hardcore loyalist people I know are pretty indifferent towards the crown. In the past these types used to be fairly conservative and supported the monarchy and the tradition surrounding it, but now they're all radical and into the far-right etc.

I just can't envision people shooting each other in the name of different monarchs anymore. For King Charles!... nah, can't see it. tbh the whole loyalist cause is too distant from the monarchy and indeed the rest of Britain these days.

---

All that really proves is that people can change there culture and attitudes etc etc very easy so why is it impossible to change this bad law.

I believe it states nowhere the monarch must marry a Protestant only they cant marry a Catholic or be a Catholic that is social engineering and is something no person should allow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

That does sound like a very good idea actually.

If the Pope was just a spiritual leader it wouldn't matter (two kingdoms and all that), but since he is head of a sovereign state I would be very uncomfortable with my own soveriegn owing him any allegiance, just imagine if a monarch did the same thing with an American President, nobody would argue that would be unacceptable.

---

We've had Catholic presidents.

In fact, most of the world gets by just fine without centuries old religious discrimination written into law. Support of the continuing ban seems based in a very old bigotry.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

In fact, most of the world gets by just fine without centuries old religious discrimination written into law. Support of the continuing ban seems based in a very old bigotry.

---

Or modern practicalities, perhaps. The head of the Church of England shouldn't be a Catholic. Clearly. Were that not an issue, I'd be in favour of the Act being scrapped.

So unless you're up for Methodists and Mormons joining the college of cardinals.. Nevar! Nevar! Nevar!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I don't mean thrown out the window, put them in a museum (if they already were not). I have an appreciation for our historical roots, but somethings it is good to simply clear out the system, so it is all new, sparkly, etc. For example, I would love to clear it all out, do a Constitution with a bunch of associated Bills on related issues that need to be covered and make Parliament there only to make decisions and not constantly draft new laws when they will not be needed.

I have no problem with Act of Settlement being replaced, as I already expressed. Though I thought of a really interesting idea, which I bet Furunculus would like as well. Change it so it says "The President/Monarchy shall never be a subject of a greater power".
Not only would it stop those who don't renounce the pope (it wouldn't be based on religion anymore), but also, Furunculus will not be scared of some EU superstate.

---

I'm fine with change as long as it respects what came before, and maintains that heritable link, i just doubt that an in the era of legalistic moralising we would come up with something as succinct, sympathetic, brief, understandable, and appreciated as the US constiution. it would end up like the EU constitution; a complete wheel-barrow full of meaningless bollox which no cares about or is invested in the success of.

absolutely great idea Beskar, most awesome idea that i'm aware of you uttering (and you have many good ideas), because i don't really care about the CoE, and I don't believe Charles wants to be head of the CoE either, and as long as "Monarchy shall never be a subject of a greater power" is preserved and sovereignty maintained i will be happy (especially if we get a parliamentary sovereignty act too). The monarchy has always evolved to meet the expectations of the people, its why we still have one rather then butchering them at some time in the distant past, the last time was George V when he evolved the monarchy into a family role model and the honours system away from aristocracy and towards voluntary excellence, Charles has every intention of evolving the monarchy too.