Author Topic: Scottish Independence (Read 1979 times)

Christopher67 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 13, 2014, 01:34:57 AM »

The NWO does not want a YES win.....That means its good if they do. Im Irish.

stgobnait · « **Reply #16 on:** September 13, 2014, 03:11:45 AM »

there's a seer somewhere, has said scotland will leave the union, just a bit of ser in dip ity! :gandalf:

Meg · « **Reply #17 on:** September 13, 2014, 08:43:30 AM »

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

Quote from: Meg
At least two or three of the recent liberal Prime Ministers in London have been of Scottish background. Sadly.

No surprises there. The Anglo-Saxon Lowland Scots have played a disproportionately significant role in the creation of modern liberalism. I'm thinking of figures like David Hume and Adam Smith.

I don't know much about Hume and Smith. But in looking at the Wiki articles about them, it seems that they were part of the 18th century 'Scottish Enlightenment,' and they seemed to have cared more about their strange philosophies than their own country.

Meg · « **Reply #18 on:** September 13, 2014, 08:50:38 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Dolores
Quote from: Christopher67
Anytime anyone has an opportunity to remove themselves from beneath the heel of the "Windsors", they should take it.

It has already been stated unequivocally that if Scotland becomes independent, Elizabeth II will remain Queen of Scots. It would be the same arrangement Canada, Australia, and the other Commonwealth Realms have; an independent government under the same sovereign.

If they were to become a republic, there would be an opening for the Stuart heir to seize what is his. Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein attended school in England. He must be aware that Scotland and England are his by right upon the death of his relative, Franz, Duke of Bavaria. It all sounds so improbable, I know, but just consider that the independence of Scotland seemed utterly improbable only a short time ago as well. Certainly the Stuart restoration seems far less improbable, by that rationale, than it did prior to anybody considering that the Scots would ever leave the UK.

Wow....it would be so awesome to have Catholic monarch in Scotland. And I'm not a monarchist. Yes, it's far-fetched, but how would the Stuart heir go about claiming the throne, assuming that he wanted to do so?

PereJoseph · « **Reply #19 on:** September 13, 2014, 09:18:35 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Dolores
Quote from: Christopher67
Anytime anyone has an opportunity to remove themselves from beneath the heel of the "Windsors", they should take it.

It has already been stated unequivocally that if Scotland becomes independent, Elizabeth II will remain Queen of Scots. It would be the same arrangement Canada, Australia, and the other Commonwealth Realms have; an independent government under the same sovereign.

If they were to become a republic, there would be an opening for the Stuart heir to seize what is his. Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein attended school in England. He must be aware that Scotland and England are his by right upon the death of his relative, Franz, Duke of Bavaria. It all sounds so improbable, I know, but just consider that the independence of Scotland seemed utterly improbable only a short time ago as well. Certainly the Stuart restoration seems far less improbable, by that rationale, than it did prior to anybody considering that the Scots would ever leave the UK.

Wow....it would be so awesome to have Catholic monarch in Scotland. And I'm not a monarchist. Yes, it's far-fetched, but how would the Stuart heir go about claiming the throne, assuming that he wanted to do so?

Raising an army and subduing the country is the most straightforward way. Bonnie Prince Charlie gained the support of the Highland clans and marched south. Otherwise, it seems that becoming popular with the upper class and the common people and inviting them to consider a referendum that recognises one's power as some kind of constitutional monarch. That seems to be the more popular method today. But the Stuart heir has the right to rule Scotland, so he doesn't need permission to assume power if he had the means of doing so, just like I wouldn't need any permission to seize possession of a house that I owned but which was taken and lived in by squatters.

Meg · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2014, 10:04:04 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Raising an army and subduing the country is the most straightforward way. Bonnie Prince Charlie gained the support of the Highland clans and marched south. Otherwise, it seems that becoming popular with the upper class and the common people and inviting them to consider a referendum that recognises one's power as some kind of constitutional monarch. That seems to be the more popular method today. But the Stuart heir has the right to rule Scotland, so he doesn't need permission to assume power if he had the means of doing so, just like I wouldn't need any permission to seize possession of a house that I owned but which was taken and lived in by squatters.

Thanks for the info. A referendum that recognizes one's power as a constitutional monarch probably wouldn't go over very well, but you never know. There would be many who wouldn't recognize the Stuart's right to rule Scotland. But wouldn't the Stuart's right to rule include all of what is now the UK? Technically speaking? I read recently that the reason that the union (UK) was formed in the first place was to keep the Stuarts from trying to claim the throne (or making it difficult to do so). Would that be correct, in your view?