Confidemus Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Maybe they'll just call it the kingdom of England and friends They'll probably call it "London and meh...." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Engco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The name the United Kingdom came about when there was a political union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. The Kingdom of Ireland later joined, saw that it was a bag of shite and left. There will be no united kingdom without Scotland as there will be only 1 kingdom left, England. The United Countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would make sense. They'll probably just keep the name and hope no one notices. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 They'll probably call it "London and meh...." Ha. Uk of England and London? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 This is a new level of pish. United kindom of britain ( except Scotland ) and northern Ireland. There is no such thing as a kindom of great britain. *sigh* The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707. Read the Union with England Act. It's referred to both as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and simply "the Kingdom of Great Britain". The two Crowns became one when the distinct Kingdoms united. The Kingdom of Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. Hence the style "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" rather than "the United Kingdom of Scotland, England and Ireland". In much the same way as Southern Ireland leaving the UK didn't undo the 1801 Union, with Northern Ireland simply inheriting the characteristics of Ireland for the purpose of kingship thereafter, the secession of Scotland will not abolish the British crown with which the Irish Crown united. It will simply remove Scotland from the relevant territory. In much the same way as the name was simply amended to read "Northern Ireland" instead of "Ireland", the "Great Britain" component can, quite easily and legitimately, should they so choose, be redesignated "South Britain" "Britain", "England and Wales" or "Augustus Gloop". The name the United Kingdom came about when there was a political union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. The Kingdom of Ireland later joined, saw that it was a bag of shite and left. There will be no united kingdom without Scotland as there will be only 1 kingdom left, England. The United Countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would make sense. They'll probably just keep the name and hope no one notices. You have absolutely no understanding of how constitutional law works whatsoever. 1. The Kingdom of Ireland did not "join in a club". The Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland united into one Kingdom under one Crown. 2. "The Kingdom of Ireland" did not "see it was a bag of shite and left". A piece of territory within the island of Ireland, which had been subject internally to a scheme of sub-Westminster territorial governance, seceded from the unitary Kingdom, being redesignated a Dominion, later to become an independent Republic. The United Kingdom did not cease to be a state, nor, even if it were a "club" could it be said to have lost a member, nor had removed any of its legal persons. Northern Ireland remained and retained all of the constitutional characteristics of "Ireland". The Kingdom of Ireland ceased to be in 1801 and cannot be said to have said, done or wanted anything after that point. 3. There will still be a "United Kingdom" without Scotland. It will be a United Kingdom consisting of the remaining territory of Ireland and the remaining territory of Great Britain. Even if we adopt the "club" analogy that you hold to about what makes the Union the Union, there is still the Union of 1801 in place if Scotland secedes. All that happens is that the remaining territory of the Kingdom of Great Britain which entered into that Union continues to possess the personality of that actor, in the same way as Northern Ireland did for Ireland. 4. The secession of Scotland plainly doesn't leave "the Kingdom of England" left. The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 and even if you adhere to your absurd "club" analogy the Kingdom of Ireland survives in the Northern Irish territory. Under any reading of what the word "united" or "union" means, there is still at least one surviving union between two nominal self-extinguishing or self-sustaining participants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 *sigh* The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707. Read the Union with England Act. It's referred to both as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and simply "the Kingdom of Great Britain". The two Crowns became one when the distinct Kingdoms united. The Kingdom of Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801. Hence the style "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" rather than "the United Kingdom of Scotland, England and Ireland". In much the same way as Southern Ireland leaving the UK didn't undo the 1801 Union, with Northern Ireland simply inheriting the characteristics of Ireland for the purpose of kingship thereafter, the secession of Scotland will not abolish the British crown with which the Irish Crown united. It will simply remove Scotland from the relevant territory. In much the same way as the name was simply amended to read "Northern Ireland" instead of "Ireland", the "Great Britain" component can, quite easily and legitimately, should they so choose, be redesignated "South Britain" "Britain", "England and Wales" or "Augustus Gloop". You have absolutely no understanding of how constitutional law works whatsoever. 1. The Kingdom of Ireland did not "join in a club". The Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland united into one Kingdom under one Crown. 2. "The Kingdom of Ireland" did not "see it was a bag of shite and left". A piece of territory within the island of Ireland, which had been subject internally to a scheme of sub-Westminster territorial governance, seceded from the unitary Kingdom, being redesignated a Dominion, later to become an independent Republic. The United Kingdom did not cease to be a state, nor, even if it were a "club" could it be said to have lost a member, nor had removed any of its legal persons. Northern Ireland remained and retained all of the constitutional characteristics of "Ireland". The Kingdom of Ireland ceased to be in 1801 and cannot be said to have said, done or wanted anything after that point. 3. There will still be a "United Kingdom" without Scotland. It will be a United Kingdom consisting of the remaining territory of Ireland and the remaining territory of Great Britain. Even if we adopt the "club" analogy that you hold to about what makes the Union the Union, there is still the Union of 1801 in place if Scotland secedes. All that happens is that the remaining territory of the Kingdom of Great Britain which entered into that Union continues to possess the personality of that actor, in the same way as Northern Ireland did for Ireland. 4. The secession of Scotland plainly doesn't leave "the Kingdom of England" left. The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 and even if you adhere to your absurd "club" analogy the Kingdom of Ireland survives in the Northern Irish territory. Under any reading of what the word "united" or "union" means, there is still at least one surviving union between two nominal self-extinguishing or self-sustaining participants. Still cant bring mydelf to read your tombs. Did you explain how the two kingdoms of England and Scotland became one kingdom? Why are there two crowns with Scottish crown jewels and English crown jewels? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Did you explain how the two kingdoms of England and Scotland became one kingdom? Yes. By ratifying a Treaty through an Act of Union each, legislating their old Kingdoms out of existence. Why are there two crowns with Scottish crown jewels and English crown jewels? There are physically two Crowns because there used to be two Kingdoms. They decided not to make a new physical Crown for the new Kingdom. The only reason there aren't Irish Crown jewels is because they were stolen from Dublin and never recovered. Incidentally, there are similar such vestments for the appointing of the Prince of Wales. The physical existence of jewelery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something was or is a Kingdom. Edited July 28, 2014 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 If the miracle happens Yes wins, they should adopt the title Former United Kingdom Nation Of Scotland, or FUKNOS! Seems appropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taza Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 The name the United Kingdom came about when there was a political union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. The Kingdom of Ireland later joined, saw that it was a bag of shite and left. There will be no united kingdom without Scotland as there will be only 1 kingdom left, England. The United Countries of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would make sense. They'll probably just keep the name and hope no one notices. Sort of what Rangers did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Yes. By ratifying a Treaty through an Act of Union each, legislating their old Kingdoms out of existence. There are physically two Crowns because there used to be two Kingdoms. They decided not to make a new physical Crown for the new Kingdom. The only reason there aren't Irish Crown jewels is because they were stolen from Dublin and never recovered. Incidentally, there are similar such vestments for the appointing of the Prince of Wales. The physical existence of jewelery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something was or is a Kingdom. So dear Queenie is not the Queen of England then? If there is only one kingdom surely she sould be called the Queen of the UK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 If the miracle happens Yes wins, they should adopt the title Former United Kingdom Nation Of Scotland, or FUKNOS! Seems appropriate. Wah wah waaaaaah. Scotland will do just fine thanks. Its the RUK that will have a very tough time coming up with a new title. Shame. It will be fun to watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 So dear Queenie is not the Queen of England then? If there is only one kingdom surely she sould be called the Queen of the UK. She isn't the Queen of England. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) She isn't the Queen of England.Ok then libs. Give us her title.Remember, the sevco chaps are listening. Edited July 28, 2014 by Blaven 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just call it Greater England. Half the Welsh are pretty much English and half of Northern Ireland wants to be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackIsleBud Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/panelbase-announce-huge-methodological.html?m=1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/panelbase-announce-huge-methodological.html?m=1 Is this what they mean by cooking the books? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Ok then libs. Give us her title. Remember, the sevco chaps are listening. She has many titles. The one relevant to us is: "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 She has many titles. The one relevant to us is: "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" So NOT the Queen of England? Never , ever the Queen of England? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 So NOT the Queen of England? Never , ever the Queen of England? Elizabeth Windsor has never been the Queen of England. The last person to hold such a position was Queen Anne of England, who on the coming into force by Parliamentary ratification of the Treaty entered into by her and Anne, Queen of Scots, ceased to be either of those and became by the fact of that Treaty, Anne, Queen of Great Britain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackIsleBud Posted July 29, 2014 Share Posted July 29, 2014 Is this what they mean by cooking the books? Yep....this thing is going to the wire. Keep the faith guys....we will do this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.