Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
EU Baloo

Would the Lion Rampant be welcome in 'independent Scotland'?

[color=blue]The symbol of a lion has been used as a heraldic device for many centuries by Scottish Kings. William I of Scotland ( 1165 - 1214 ) was known as 'The Lion', after he introduced the lion symbol into his coat of arms.

The Scottish lion has always been shown, on the royal shield, as being Rampant. There is a suggestion that perhaps the Kings of Scotland kept a real lion when in residence at the castles of Stirling and Edinburgh. Both castles have a building within the walls known as ' The Lions Den'.

So, that's the historical histerical heraldrical bit....

But does the "royal" flag have a place in an imagined independent Scotland?

If we reject unionism, surely we reject the union of the crown and therefore bring the royalist arguement into this.

If we reject the idea of having a monarchy in Scotland 'kingdom' (albeit rejected during the Civil War by regiside and only partly reinstated by Charles II)..surely we bury the Lion Rampant?

Would Scotland with so much of its "glory" tied to the fate of the crown wish to reject monarchy? Would we really bury the Lion?[/color] Confused
Wolf of Badenoch

I think that a lot ae people dinnae connect the Lion Rampant tae royalty but see it mair as a symbol o Scotland.
If we reject unionism it disnae follow that we reject royalty,aye reject yon rag an her family ae inbred alcoholic racists sitting doon in buck hoose but disnae mean we reject a Scottish Royal family.
Aw naw a Scottish Royalty!! Heading intae murky waters thaur.
Onyways im a republican so............ PDT_Aliboronz_14
IF Convenor

Technically it's the personal standard of the monarch, but I think it can be seen as a symbol of sovereignty in an independent Scotland. I think it will not last long as the standard of the monarch because the monarchy will go pretty soon after independence, but it will remaian as one of Scotland's long-held symbols (e.g. on the badges of Scotland sports teams).
patriot1320

I am in preference for the st Andrew flag. But I would agree we keep the Lion rampant as a symbol of Scottishness. There is no need for two national flags so lets keep William the lion on all scottish sportswear with the st andrews cross below it.
the bard of keppoch

most scots whether nationalist or republican minded scots will look on the lion rampant as a symbol of scottish pride. despite its connection with the brit monarchy. to those schooled in heraldry,can you correct me if im wrong,but can the lion rampant only be flown from a royal residence if the queen is in residence
the bard of keppoch

that last sentence sounds like a bit of a marketing ploy,patriot,im not aware of anyone who labels the 'lion on their scottish sportswear ' William. ha ha
Rinty

t

Quote:
most scots whether nationalist or republican minded scots will look on the lion rampant as a symbol of scottish pride


Not me, one of the things about independence is throwing off the symbols that were your shackles.

I think it is embarrassing when I see people waving that Flag and I would kill the lion and replace it with a lovely big red star Smile
Gung-ho

Re: t

Rinty wrote:
Quote:
most scots whether nationalist or republican minded scots will look on the lion rampant as a symbol of scottish pride


Not me, one of the things about independence is throwing off the symbols that were your shackles.

I think it is embarrassing when I see people waving that Flag and I would kill the lion and replace it with a lovely big red star Smile


Aye like the Red Star has such a sterling rep around the world. The Lion Rampant is a symbol of scottish pride and courage which pre-dates the union of the Crowns and the Union of 1707 and to my Knowledge nobody has tried to commit genocide under it either unlike the Red Star.
the bard of keppoch

well Rinty i think it is terrible that you should be embarressed about another mans pride
Rinty

t

Dont take it too seriously lads - I did put a wee winky guy at the end.

I am a republican and I believe in freedom for Scotland, whether it predates the union or not is irelevant for me and what other people have done with a red star is irrelevant too. No-one would be slaughtered under a scottish red star (the red star part was an obvious joke with a wink and i decsribed it as lovely - but if you want to argue about it I'm game)

I dont criticise the actions done under the banner of the lion, just its significance of a scotland that defers to royals and special people. Scotland to me is its people, no special privileges because of who your relations are.

Bard I am not embarrassed about someone elses pride but I see it a bit like curtsying to the Lord Leiutenant. And because something is someone elses pride does not make it Ok, I am sure there are some who take pride in the swastika, and I am sure that that there are german nationalists that will say "forget the history of it - it symbolises pride in our country".

A man o independent mind - he looks and laughs at aw that!

Burns would be a good way to end but there is a better quote from a genius of our own generation - Bill Hicks when talking about people burning the american flag during the anti-vietnam protests.

Hillbilly - My daddy died for that flag.
Hicks - Really? I bought mine in K-mart, in and out in minutes no violence.
Hillbilly - My daddy died in Korea for that flag
Hicks - thats a coincidence - mine was made in Korea!
azzuri

I think pride in the Lion Rampant comes from the fact it is a truly Scottish symbol, royal or not.

We can have pride in a symbol for what it represents to us now, not what it represented 300 years ago.

To suggest getting rid of the Lion Rampant would be like suggesting we get rid of Edinburgh Castle or Holyrood Palace just because of what it used to represent.

All of these things are the fabric that make up the rich tapestry that is modern Scotland. We should be proud of things for what they represent to us now.

A lot of people I know don't even know what the Lion Rampant is to Scotland - but they love it because it's different and a bit 'cooler' than the saltire! They see it as representing Scotland, not a Scottish Monarch.

I love the Bill Hicks quotes Rinty - the guy was a genius! Cool
the bard of keppoch

Rinty mate,i share they same sentiments,the men of the french revolution had the right idea when they wiped out the french aristocrats,
Lothian Sky

This embem was emblazoned on the chest of Robert the Bruce, there's no way I'm ashamed of it. Just because it has been usurped by Lizzie doesn't take away its ancient significance for me. It's not our national flag, but for me its a symbol of our history and pride.
garye

The Lion Rampant was the first Scotland flag I ever bought and I do believe it has a real Scottishness about it. I particularly like my own one as it has REMEMBER BANNOCKBURN 1314 on it.
patriot1320

Well i'm Proud to be a scot and Proud to have my Sig below....
Wolf of Badenoch

Of course yees aw ken that we`re gonnae get telt aff ae "he whaes name must be whispered" that we`ve nae richt tae be flying ony Lion Rampant. Wink
IF Convenor

Hey rinty, what cup does a team have to win to get a red star on its jerseys? Wink
Aventinian

Re: Would the Lion Rampant be welcome in 'independent Scotla

EU Baloo wrote:
If we reject unionism, surely we reject the union of the crown and therefore bring the royalist arguement into this.


The Union of the Crowns isn't rejectable since it wasn't actually an action, simply a set of circumstances which came about. The Scottish Royal Family became the Royal House of England. You can reject monarchy, as far as I see it, however to reject the Crown simply because it became the Crown of another part of the world is tantamount to treason in my mind.


Quote:
Would Scotland with so much of its "glory" tied to the fate of the crown wish to reject monarchy? Would we really bury the Lion?Confused


I don't think there is a huge association in the popular perception between the Lion Rampant and HM the Queen. However, the Queen's heraldric bearings are her property. Using the Lion Rampant without her consent is usurption of arms and still a very real criminal offence (although use by hand to display loyalty was granted permission). I still believe that any use of it by a republican government or what-have-you would be simple state-sanctioned theft.

the bard of keppoch wrote:
most scots whether nationalist or republican minded scots will look on the lion rampant as a symbol of scottish pride. despite its connection with the brit monarchy. to those schooled in heraldry,can you correct me if im wrong,but can the lion rampant only be flown from a royal residence if the queen is in residence


No, it can be used on the personal consent of Her Majesty - just like anyone who possesses a banner of arms can appoint officers to carry it (a baron-ballie, for example) and is, at present, flown from Holyrood Palace when the Queen is _not_ in residence (as opposed to the full Royal Banner in Scotland when she is). It can also be used by certain designated Crown officers - Lords Lieutenant from Scottish areas and, in some circumstances, the First Minister.

It is generally not used, alone, when the Queen is actually present.
sandmountainslim

It is part of the glorious banner of ScotWatch (seen to your left) and cannot be destroyed! Cool
Babygael

ScotWatch erm waes that?
If yer persume tae tak oor flag an even remotely associate it wae some rag, wall yer are a real fekkin eejit! Whit if ma bog roll was the stars and stripes??
SF102

Babygael wrote:
Whit if ma bog roll was the stars and stripes??


The yanks talk enough crap so it might as well be <eg>
sandmountainslim

Babygael wrote:
ScotWatch erm waes that?
If yer persume tae tak oor flag an even remotely associate it wae some rag, wall yer are a real fekkin eejit! Whit if ma bog roll was the stars and stripes??

You can HAVE the Striped Banner as far as I am concerned.
The Lion belongs to the members of ScotWatch as much as to anyone else, as many of my ancestors died at Bannockburn, Flodden etc. as anyone elses, I will use it whenever I choose.
Battenbergs and anyone else be damned. The Lion is a part of the Auld Heritage Flag and shall remain so.
Deo Vindice
WP
njminer1

MY GOD!!!!!

 PDT_Aliboronz_24
i am quite sure that there was no disrespect intended for the use of the rampant lion, in a symbol that seeks to display different pieces of the american puzzle. the way the demographics are starting to line up, scots/celts in america, will start to be relegated to a smaller bar on the graph.scots/celts, have impressed their legacy on every part of the planet. countries that tended to start out as melting pot countries, have in the texture of their fabric, a strong sense of establishing cultural 'reminders', some anchor to their national/ cultural origins. but, i guess as it comes, or goes around, ya'll there in europa will be finding that out shortly. no wait, you will all remain the same height, it just wont take too much time.

'don't reach out for me', she said,' cantcha see i'm drowning too.
man it's rough out there,
high water everywhere.' b.dylan
Confedgrand

The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal. And the Scotwatch flag, as many members of Scotwatch are of royal Stewart Descent. If you don't care for that then I suggest you cry to that usurping hag lizzy battenberg. Maybe she'll listen. For I shall not!
Raycephas

What's wrong with using symbols of your heritage and ancestry to promote one's heritage and ancestry? The Flag of ScotWatch pays tribute to the Scottish ancestry of many members of that group.

If we do not have our heritage or ancestry, then what do we have? Nothing!
Aventinian

Confedgrand wrote:
The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal. And the Scotwatch flag, as many members of Scotwatch are of royal Stewart Descent. If you don't care for that then I suggest you cry to that usurping hag lizzy battenberg. Maybe she'll listen. For I shall not!


No offence, but to hell with the House of Stewart. James VII was rightfully deposed by the Parliament of Scotland when he committed acts of treason and deeds which breached his Coronation Oath and were against the fundamental liberties of the people.

Anyway, as you should well know for all your psuedo-Scottieism, in Scotland grants of arms are not given to families, but to individuals. As the only legitimate and legal heir of the Scottish Royal Throne, the head of the House of Windsor is the only person entitled to rule on the usage of her armorial bearings.
sandmountainslim

Aventinian wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal. And the Scotwatch flag, as many members of Scotwatch are of royal Stewart Descent. If you don't care for that then I suggest you cry to that usurping hag lizzy battenberg. Maybe she'll listen. For I shall not!


James VII was rightfully deposed by the Parliament of Scotland

Rightfully deposed??
Hogwash Laughing
Raycephas

If James VII was rightfully deposed, then I guess William the b****rd (no offence to Mr Potter!) rightfully deposed Harol II.
sandmountainslim

Raycephas wrote:
If James VII was rightfully deposed, then I guess William the b****rd (no offence to Mr Potter!) rightfully deposed Harol II.

"William The b****rd"?
Are you throwin dirt at my Paw-Paw? Shocked Very Happy
WP
Confedgrand

Aventinian wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal. And the Scotwatch flag, as many members of Scotwatch are of royal Stewart Descent. If you don't care for that then I suggest you cry to that usurping hag lizzy battenberg. Maybe she'll listen. For I shall not!


No offence, but to hell with the House of Stewart. James VII was rightfully deposed by the Parliament of Scotland when he committed acts of treason and deeds which breached his Coronation Oath and were against the fundamental liberties of the people.

Anyway, as you should well know for all your psuedo-Scottieism, in Scotland grants of arms are not given to families, but to individuals. As the only legitimate and legal heir of the Scottish Royal Throne, the head of the House of Windsor is the only person entitled to rule on the usage of her armorial bearings.


The usurping Battenbergs masquerading as Windsors are nothing but whores and imbeciles! My Llewellyn Setter has more royal blood than they! And since you seem to know so much about it, when Arms are granted to an individual, that individual may ordain other individuals to display those Arms in his stead. Or a House or Clan. But don’t let me confuse you with facts. I’m sure you’re too busy sucking on that bitch Liz’s tit. The entire Windsor cult should be imprisoned for impersonating a monarch! What’s next, are you going select another transvestite as queen? LOL! Death to the Saxon/Germanic hordes! May they rot in the deepest pits of hell! May England burn to light the way for all men of freedom and liberty! Free Scotland or die!
EU Baloo

Well this has been a very interesting response to my posting - thanks.

Can I take a casting vote here as the instigator...I am off the opinion that the Lion for all its negative ties to the suppression of both people and the poor old lion itself, does represent the common man's Scotland. The Saltire was less common as a child.

I think we keep it....let us in the future, not be like the Irish. Let us accept our part in history - good and bad and have the double pleasure of having two great flags that remind us of who we are.

Very Happy
Rinty

Royal Stewarts and Robert the Bruce are no different to me than Windsors or Hanovers.

Ive never had a lion rampant flag and as a socialist and republican i dont know many people who have one.

I have always associated the flag with Scottish royalists and it seems from the reaction here that was a wrong assumption.

At Scotland games I always thought that the guys with lion rampants supported the monarchy and that is why they chose that flag over the saltire.
Confedgrand

[quote="Rinty"]

Ive never had a lion rampant flag and as a socialist and republican i dont know many people who have one.

quote]

OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!
azzuri

Rinty wrote:


I have always associated the flag with Scottish royalists and it seems from the reaction here that was a wrong assumption.

At Scotland games I always thought that the guys with lion rampants supported the monarchy and that is why they chose that flag over the saltire.


I certainly wouldn't make that assumption Rinty - some folk just like the flag for the way it looks and the fact it's Scottish - I'd guess very few people who have one at Scotland games actually know what it means.
October1974

I agree with Azzuri, not many people out there realise that it is the monarchists flag.
Aventinian

Confedgrand wrote:
The usurping Battenbergs masquerading as Windsors are nothing but whores and imbeciles! My Llewellyn Setter has more royal blood than they!


Funny how the change during the Glorious Revolution only involved skipping one sibling in the succession.

Quote:
And since you seem to know so much about it, when Arms are granted to an individual, that individual may ordain other individuals to display those Arms in his stead. Or a House or Clan.


I am quite aware that armorial bearings may be used in someone else's stead. I've certainly never heard of that right being granted to a whole clan or any such. Indeed, I believe it is standard practice to register these persons with the Court of the Lord Lyon, as most lords do with their Baron-Ballies. Either way, I doubt the Queen has been so kind as to pass on that privilege to your little organisation.

Quote:
But don’t let me confuse you with facts. I’m sure you’re too busy sucking on that bitch Liz’s tit. The entire Windsor cult should be imprisoned for impersonating a monarch! What’s next, are you going select another transvestite as queen? LOL! Death to the Saxon/Germanic hordes! May they rot in the deepest pits of hell! May England burn to light the way for all men of freedom and liberty! Free Scotland or die!


The law of the United Kingdom is that the Monarch is the legitimate successor of Sophia, Electress of Hanover - and what the law of this country says, goes. I don't know quite what basis you're appointing your monarchs on, but if you're anything like the Jacobites you're probably still madly holding on to the Divine Right of Kings or such similar rot.

Anyway, you've exposed yourself as a petty racist, someone who has absolutely no respect for people who are performing duties well for my country (not yours, incidently) for nothing in return pretty much an all-round arsehole. Well done.

Confedgrand wrote:
OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!


Well you don't get many socialist-monarchists out there, do you? Rolling Eyes

By the way, do you actually know anything about Scotland?
Raycephas

Quote:
"William The b****rd"?
Are you throwin dirt at my Paw-Paw?


It doesn't take much to throw dirt on William the "Conqueror". Even he admitted on his deathbed that he was a thief. Laughing Twisted Evil
Chookie

sandmountainslim wrote:
.......my ancestors died at Bannockburn, Flodden etc.........


If that is the case, I would be interested to know how the hell you exist in the present day.
sandmountainslim

Chookie wrote:
sandmountainslim wrote:
.......my ancestors died at Bannockburn, Flodden etc.........


If that is the case, I would be interested to know how the hell you exist in the present day.


Let's see.....my great grandfather died in 1947 yet I am alive today, I had an ancestor killed in the WBTS yet I live, my 15th G-Grandfather died at Flodden yet here I am.
It is simple you have children BEFORE you die and that is the way you have descendants Rolling Eyes I suppose that all of your ancestors are still alive??
WP
Confedgrand

Aventinian wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
The usurping Battenbergs masquerading as Windsors are nothing but whores and imbeciles! My Llewellyn Setter has more royal blood than they!


Funny how the change during the Glorious Revolution only involved skipping one sibling in the succession.

Quote:
And since you seem to know so much about it, when Arms are granted to an individual, that individual may ordain other individuals to display those Arms in his stead. Or a House or Clan.


I am quite aware that armorial bearings may be used in someone else's stead. I've certainly never heard of that right being granted to a whole clan or any such. Indeed, I believe it is standard practice to register these persons with the Court of the Lord Lyon, as most lords do with their Baron-Ballies. Either way, I doubt the Queen has been so kind as to pass on that privilege to your little organisation.

Quote:
But don’t let me confuse you with facts. I’m sure you’re too busy sucking on that bitch Liz’s tit. The entire Windsor cult should be imprisoned for impersonating a monarch! What’s next, are you going select another transvestite as queen? LOL! Death to the Saxon/Germanic hordes! May they rot in the deepest pits of hell! May England burn to light the way for all men of freedom and liberty! Free Scotland or die!


The law of the United Kingdom is that the Monarch is the legitimate successor of Sophia, Electress of Hanover - and what the law of this country says, goes. I don't know quite what basis you're appointing your monarchs on, but if you're anything like the Jacobites you're probably still madly holding on to the Divine Right of Kings or such similar rot.

Anyway, you've exposed yourself as a petty racist, someone who has absolutely no respect for people who are performing duties well for my country (not yours, incidently) for nothing in return pretty much an all-round arsehole. Well done.

Confedgrand wrote:
OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!


Well you don't get many socialist-monarchists out there, do you? Rolling Eyes

By the way, do you actually know anything about Scotland?


Racist? LOL! Smile You really are a dolt aren't you? There's no such thing as race! Unless you subscribe to the thoroughly debunked pseudo-science of Phrenology! Merely cultural ethnicity. But I wouldn't expect anyone of your limited intelligence to understand that. As for english law, who cares? I do not recognize the current england as a valid or sovereign nation. What do I know about Scotland? Hmmm….gee….I don’t know. Except that I trained nearly your whole damn Navy! And it doesn’t hurt that I’m an heir to the Scottish throne. From your response it’s obvious that you know little of Scotland except what exists between your own two ears! And unless you’re a Quantum Physicist, which I highly doubt, that just won’t cut it! So go climb back in your hole with a bottle of single malt and let people with still firing synapses hold intelligent intercourse.
Rinty

g

Quote:
OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!


Now I am confused. In what way are the two mutually exclusive? Monarchism and republicanism are mututally exclusive, that is obvious, but I dont know what you mean so I would need to know in what way you think they are exclusive before I answered your question.

And in what way are they "disciplines"?
George

Re: g

Rinty wrote:
Quote:
OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!


Now I am confused. In what way are the two mutually exclusive? Monarchism and republicanism are mututally exclusive, that is obvious, but I dont know what you mean so I would need to know in what way you think they are exclusive before I answered your question.

And in what way are they "disciplines"?


'Republican' in the American sense perhaps, as opposed to Democrat.
Rinty

g

Yes but I am a republican not a member of the Republican Party. I just cant understand what he means, I suppose there are many different definitions, but in its simplest forms I would see republican as meaning someone who believes in the control of a country by its people, a socialist would be someone who also believed that but also had the people owning the property and wealth as well as legislating.
Aventinian

Confedgrand wrote:
Racist? LOL! Smile You really are a dolt aren't you? There's no such thing as race! Unless you subscribe to the thoroughly debunked pseudo-science of Phrenology! Merely cultural ethnicity. But I wouldn't expect anyone of your limited intelligence to understand that.


You don't have to believe in phrenology to understand a concept of race, nor does the term 'racism' even have to apply to races in the popular perception. As for limited intelligence, please - spare me the playground insults, at least I know what a republic is.

Quote:
As for english law, who cares? I do not recognize the current england as a valid or sovereign nation.


I didn't refer to English law once. All of my points about the law can be backed up by the law of Scotland and would easily be considered fact in Scottish courts. Although it is irrelevant to me, and the vast majority of people who accept reality, all of this was done PRE-UNION! English law has never had effect in Scotland and I certainly wouldn't be raising it in reference to Scotland - quite simply because I know very little of it.

I don't recognise England as sovereign either - because it's a part of the United Kingdom in case you didn't realise.

Quote:
What do I know about Scotland?
Hmmm….gee….I don’t know. Except that I trained nearly your whole damn Navy! And it doesn’t hurt that I’m an heir to the Scottish throne.


My, my. A relation with some sailors from Scotland and a rather dodgy (that means 'questionable,' by the way) link to some Royal House that ruled Scotland over three hundred years ago that everyone and their dog in America seems to claim. I'm absolutely astounded by your qualifications!

Quote:
From your response it’s obvious that you know little of Scotland except what exists between your own two ears! And unless you’re a Quantum Physicist, which I highly doubt, that just won’t cut it! So go climb back in your hole with a bottle of single malt and let people with still firing synapses hold intelligent intercourse.


No, I am not a quantum physicist although I have no idea why that would assist in my knowledge of all things Scottish. As for knowing 'little of Scotland' - what can I say? Having lived here almost all my life and being able to highlight and correct your stunning ignorance of my nation?

It disappoints me when Americans manage to continue the stereotype of their people as insular and ill-versed in the affairs of other nations, mainly because I know so many Americans who are quite the opposite.
IF Convenor

I didn't realise Scotland had a Navy.

I suppose it would be quite easy to train nearly the whole of a non-existent Navy.
SLG

Well that will be one less thing to worry about post Independence.
sandmountainslim

IF Convenor wrote:
I didn't realise Scotland had a Navy.

Speaking of the Scottish Navy,
Let's hear it for the Great Michael and for the man who commissioned her building!
Please consider signing the petition at the bottom of my signature.
Deo Vindice
WP
neil8r

Confedgrand wrote:
The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal.


What nonsense, the House of Stewart is no longer part of Scotland, therefore have no claim whatsoever over the Lion Rampant

Quote:
it is the Scottish Royal banner, and its correct use is restricted to only a few Great Officers who officially represent The Sovereign, including;

the First Minister as Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland,
Lord Lieutenants in their Lieutenancies,
the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
the Lord Lyon King of Arms,
and other lieutenants specially appointed.
Its use by other, non-authorised persons is an offence under the Act of Parliament 1672 cap. 47 and 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 17.



http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyo...C&p_service=Content.show&
Confedgrand

Re: g

Rinty wrote:
Quote:
OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!


Now I am confused. In what way are the two mutually exclusive? Monarchism and republicanism are mututally exclusive, that is obvious, but I dont know what you mean so I would need to know in what way you think they are exclusive before I answered your question.

And in what way are they "disciplines"?



Republic

Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>


Socialism

Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Confedgrand

IF Convenor wrote:
I didn't realise Scotland had a Navy.

I suppose it would be quite easy to train nearly the whole of a non-existent Navy.


I suppose I should have taken baby steps and put it into simplified language for you. But as you seem bent on sarcasm, why bother? Anyone too indulged in their own existance to extrapolate basic information from simple text really isn't worth the air it takes to converse. And the fact that your masters second largest naval base is located in Scotland seems to be superfluous! But don't let me confuse you with facts, your mind is obviously made up!
Confedgrand

neil8r wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal.


What nonsense, the House of Stewart is no longer part of Scotland, therefore have no claim whatsoever over the Lion Rampant

Quote:
it is the Scottish Royal banner, and its correct use is restricted to only a few Great Officers who officially represent The Sovereign, including;

the First Minister as Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland,
Lord Lieutenants in their Lieutenancies,
the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
the Lord Lyon King of Arms,
and other lieutenants specially appointed.
Its use by other, non-authorised persons is an offence under the Act of Parliament 1672 cap. 47 and 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 17.



http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyo...C&p_service=Content.show&



Keep dreaming! It's good for your health! Smile (William, make a note. We'll bury this one right next to longshanks. Smile)
Aventinian

*Cough* Numpty!
SLG

Confedgrand wrote:
Keep dreaming! It's good for your health! Smile (William, make a note. We'll bury this one right next to longshanks. Smile)

A wee bit harsh is it not? Laughing Anyway, who are the Royal House of Stewart? Are you referring to that Lafosse chap?
the bard of keppoch

to the boys over in the states,Respect,for keeping the memories of your ancestors alive,when did your own family emigrate and where from,and that post is to all the boys in the states.
Chookie

Ladies and Gentlemens, I am afraid that, in the personas and "Sandmountainslim" an "Confedgrand", we are faced with even more idiotic versions of our own Peter Dow.

They, of course, have the dubious excuse that they are not Scots.

http://scottishdictator.tripod.com/
garye

Re: g

Confedgrand wrote:
Rinty wrote:
Quote:
OK, I'll bite. This intrigued me. How can one be both a Republican and a Socialist? The two disciplines are mutually exclusive!


Now I am confused. In what way are the two mutually exclusive? Monarchism and republicanism are mututally exclusive, that is obvious, but I dont know what you mean so I would need to know in what way you think they are exclusive before I answered your question.

And in what way are they "disciplines"?



Republic

Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>


Socialism

Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


and your point is, caller?
azzuri

That's funny as f**k Chookie - you should add that to the recommended sites section. Laughing
sandmountainslim

the bard of keppoch wrote:
to the boys over in the states,Respect,for keeping the memories of your ancestors alive,when did your own family emigrate and where from,and that post is to all the boys in the states.


My ancestor John McCurdy was from Buteshire, he emigrated in the mid 18th century, my ancestor John Maness also emigrated in the 1740's via Ulster, I don't know whereabouts in Scotland that he and his family originated from. Both had sons that fought in the American Revolution.
Deo Vindice
WP
sandmountainslim

Chookie wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemens, I am afraid that, in the personas and "Sandmountainslim" an "Confedgrand", we are faced with even more idiotic versions of our own Peter Dow.
They, of course, have the dubious excuse that they are not Scots.
http://scottishdictator.tripod.com/

The persona known as Sandmountainslim?
I am William Potter, unlike many people I do not hide behind a nickname , all know me, where I live and for what I stand.
Comparing me to Peter Dow is beyond stupid, I have never once expressed a desire to perform analingus on Condi Rice nor do I have forums where I am the only person allowed to post.
I will let ConfedGrande introduce himself if he chooses.
Deo Vindice
WP
Confedgrand

sandmountainslim wrote:
Chookie wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemens, I am afraid that, in the personas and "Sandmountainslim" an "Confedgrand", we are faced with even more idiotic versions of our own Peter Dow.
They, of course, have the dubious excuse that they are not Scots.
http://scottishdictator.tripod.com/

The persona known as Sandmountainslim?
I am William Potter, unlike many people I do not hide behind a nickname , all know me, where I live and for what I stand.
Comparing me to Peter Dow is beyond stupid, I have never once expressed a desire to perform analingus on Condi Rice nor do I have forums where I am the only person allowed to post.
I will let ConfedGrande introduce himself if he chooses.
Deo Vindice
WP


So now you have a persona, eh, cousin? LOL! Smile There's absolutely nobody hiding here. I use the moniker Confedgrand as I am the Great Great Grandson of a famous Confederate General. But that has no bearing here. It's merely the name by which this system knows me. My given name is Tom Hale. I am the G19 Great Grandson of Mary Queen of Scots and the G18 Great Grandson of her son James VI of Scotland. (Saxons refer to him as James I) The direct blood descendant of Robert the Bruce and Great Nephew to William Wallace. But I really don't expect that to be of much consequence here. It appears this board is full of communists, on the one hand, and anti-loyalists on the other. So long have you been held in bondage and fed the gruel of your captors that you have lost any concept of Scotland except what has been fed to you by her land baron english kings. If you are Scotsmen then you know that no king or government may ever own the land. Only free men may do that. Yet you sit back and let a german whore run roughshod over the country. I care not as to whom england may choose for it's monarch, but it shall never be the monarch of Scotland. Only a Scottish king may fit that bill. A true Scottish king who is the servant and steward of his people. Not the power hungry land grabbers you have today in your southern neighbor england. For only under his protection will Scotland again know the sweet taste of freedom
Avatar

Well, well I appear to have been missing out on all the fun in this forum Wink

"My given name is Tom Hale. I am the G19 Great Grandson of Mary Queen of Scots and the G18 Great Grandson of her son James VI of Scotland. (Saxons refer to him as James I) The direct blood descendant of Robert the Bruce and Great Nephew to William Wallace. But I really don't expect that to be of much consequence here. It appears this board is full of communists, on the one hand, and anti-loyalists on the other."


Is that one of "my uncle's friend's cousin's grandpa's sister's dog" type of shows?

I have to say though I _despise_ the term "loyalist" loyal to whom? The Stewart line is dead, Jacobitism is dead, even if they weren't - nobody owes any loyalty to some pratt just because they share the same blood as a national hero / his decendents that died hundreds of years ago

"So long have you been held in bondage and fed the gruel of your captors that you have lost any concept of Scotland except what has been fed to you by her land baron english kings. If you are Scotsmen then you know that no king or government may ever own the land. Only free men may do that. Yet you sit back and let a german whore run roughshod over the country. I care not as to whom england may choose for it's monarch, but it shall never be the monarch of Scotland. Only a Scottish king may fit that bill. "

Its actually the Brittish government that "runs roughshod" over the country, the monarchy dont have any real power anymore.


"A true Scottish king who is the servant and steward of his people. Not the power hungry land grabbers you have today in your southern neighbor england. For only under his protection will Scotland again know the sweet taste of freedom"

Im sure Scotland will do just fine without a king - besides Ive always felt the title "king" comes across as lame - I would prefer a title a bit more original. Even Emperor sounds a bit more snappy.
Confedgrand

Avatar wrote:
Well, well I appear to have been missing out on all the fun in this forum Wink

"My given name is Tom Hale. I am the G19 Great Grandson of Mary Queen of Scots and the G18 Great Grandson of her son James VI of Scotland. (Saxons refer to him as James I) The direct blood descendant of Robert the Bruce and Great Nephew to William Wallace. But I really don't expect that to be of much consequence here. It appears this board is full of communists, on the one hand, and anti-loyalists on the other."


Is that one of "my uncle's friend's cousin's grandpa's sister's dog" type of shows?

I have to say though I _despise_ the term "loyalist" loyal to whom? The Stewart line is dead, Jacobitism is dead, even if they weren't - nobody owes any loyalty to some pratt just because they share the same blood as a national hero / his decendents that died hundreds of years ago

"So long have you been held in bondage and fed the gruel of your captors that you have lost any concept of Scotland except what has been fed to you by her land baron english kings. If you are Scotsmen then you know that no king or government may ever own the land. Only free men may do that. Yet you sit back and let a german whore run roughshod over the country. I care not as to whom england may choose for it's monarch, but it shall never be the monarch of Scotland. Only a Scottish king may fit that bill. "

Its actually the Brittish government that "runs roughshod" over the country, the monarchy dont have any real power anymore.


"A true Scottish king who is the servant and steward of his people. Not the power hungry land grabbers you have today in your southern neighbor england. For only under his protection will Scotland again know the sweet taste of freedom"

Im sure Scotland will do just fine without a king - besides Ive always felt the title "king" comes across as lame - I would prefer a title a bit more original. Even Emperor sounds a bit more snappy.


It's after 5:00 PM here. Which means the quibbling must stop and the friendships begin. So, until tomorrow, when quibbling time begins again, let me buy you a pint and we can plan our strategies. I'm sure you'll agree that discourse is no fun with a parched throat and a stale head. So cheers! Until tomorrow!

Tom
Aventinian

I think your defamation of Queen Elizabeth II is disgraceful. Whatever you may think of monarch, she has sworn to represent the people of the UK and Crown Commonwealth and has performed exceptionally well as the British head of state over her reign. She is the rightful monarch of Scotland, even if you disregard the union between Scotland and England and she is a bloody good person.

You on the other hand are an ignorant Yankee who'd like to pretend that he has something to do with Scotland when in reality he doesn't know any more about the place than the average foreigner.

On a political note, I see you like to personify non-human ideas (such as "Scotland") - I believe that in effect qualifies you for being considered a bit of a lunatic. Do rocks tell you what they want too?

And incidently, I'm not a communist. In fact, I am a libertarian - the direct opposite; and yet I still think you're a t**t. I note you've yet to answer any of my well-made points regarding your obviously misinformed statements about this nation. Have you casually accepted that you don't know your arse from your elbow.
neil8r

Confedgrand wrote:
neil8r wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
The rampant lion belongs to The Royal House of Stewart within Scotland. Outside Scotland it belongs to those of royal descent related to the Sang Real. Such as the Royal Spanish Seal.


What nonsense, the House of Stewart is no longer part of Scotland, therefore have no claim whatsoever over the Lion Rampant

Quote:
it is the Scottish Royal banner, and its correct use is restricted to only a few Great Officers who officially represent The Sovereign, including;

the First Minister as Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland,
Lord Lieutenants in their Lieutenancies,
the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
the Lord Lyon King of Arms,
and other lieutenants specially appointed.
Its use by other, non-authorised persons is an offence under the Act of Parliament 1672 cap. 47 and 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 17.



http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyo...C&p_service=Content.show&



Keep dreaming! It's good for your health! Smile (William, make a note. We'll bury this one right next to longshanks. Smile)



I thank you for the eloquent, highly detailed response Rolling Eyes
sandmountainslim

Aventinian wrote:


You on the other hand are an ignorant Yankee .


Laughing Tom will blow a gasket when he reads that!
I think I would rather rape his dog and steal his breakfast than call him a Yankee Laughing

Couldn't you have just called him a b****rd or something?
Deo Vindice
WP
Confedgrand

Aventinian wrote:
I
You on the other hand are an ignorant Yankee ..............



Yankee? I was going to let this rest until tomorrow. But YANKEE?!?!?!?!? Did your government education teach you that? I, sir, am NO yankee! And I'll cut the heart from any man with a dull spoon that says I am! It's amazing that you could defend a government that provided you with such a poor education. But alas, I doubt you know better. Yankee indeed! Hrmph!!!
sandmountainslim

Speaking for myself, while I always enjoy a good argument and this HAS been an interesting one I would like to state that I and all the members of ScotWatch are in no way in opposition to the members of this group.
In fact while we are on another continent we still support Scottish Republicanism and Neo-Jacobites in any way which we can, our man in Tennessee just returned from Alba where he met with some SNP officials and brought back some souveniers from Culloden and SNP materials for me. I personally also support the members of the SRSM and feel that there are no finer patriots to be found anywhere.
This has been an interesting argument about symbols, navies etc. but all in all we are more on the same page than a casual observer would believe.
All I meant to say was that ScotWatch loves the Rampant Lion, we incorporate it in our flag and that it shall remain a part of our flag no matter who supports or despises the Lion itself.
Deo Vindice
WP
Confedgrand

sandmountainslim wrote:
Speaking for myself, while I always enjoy a good argument and this HAS been an interesting one I would like to state that I and all the members of ScotWatch are in no way in opposition to the members of this group.
In fact while we are on another continent we still support Scottish Republicanism and Neo-Jacobites in any way which we can, our man in Tennessee just returned from Alba where he met with some SNP officials and brought back some souveniers from Culloden and SNP materials for me. I personally also support the members of the SRSM and feel that there are no finer patriots to be found anywhere.
This has been an interesting argument about symbols, navies etc. but all in all we are more on the same page than a casual observer would believe.
All I meant to say was that ScotWatch loves the Rampant Lion, we incorporate it in our flag and that it shall remain a part of our flag no matter who supports or despises the Lion itself.
Deo Vindice
WP


I agree. I just came by to stir up some fun and see if we couldn't get a good row going. And to a degree we did. It was fun. I really don't mean to seem so cruel in some of my posts, but how else do you get someone to really tell you what they think unless you piss them off first? LOL! Smile Y'all are a blast. And I look forward to blowing up your kilts again. Until tomorrow, Y'all come back now, ya hear? Smile
SF102

Confedgrand wrote:
I agree. I just came by to stir up some fun and see if we couldn't get a good row going. And to a degree we did. It was fun. I really don't mean to seem so cruel in some of my posts, but how else do you get someone to really tell you what they think unless you piss them off first? LOL! Smile Y'all are a blast. And I look forward to blowing up your kilts again. Until tomorrow, Y'all come back now, ya hear? Smile


I've found the best way to get people to tell you what they think is by befriending them making them feel comfy (or taking 'em out and getting 'em ratted) By pissing people off all you're doing is getting their backs and getting a distorted angry view. I think your calling of the Queen a whore is disgraceful but at the end of the day you're just a font and in that respect you can and will ignored by meself.
the bard of keppoch

scotwatch boys,half(50%) of the people on here dont know how to take a wind up ? Infact im sure you will have a few people objecting to me saying ' more than half 50%' canny take a wind up
azzuri

Christ almighty - the Aventinian wind-up works again.

Confedgrand - I imagine due to the avatar you are displaying that Aventinian called you a Yankee deliberately in order to annoy you. 'Yank' or 'Yankee' is a term used over here (often by the older generation Wink) to describe an American. I imagine it was supposed to come as a veiled insult - you did after all insult the Queen.
sandmountainslim

azzuri wrote:
Christ almighty - the Aventinian wind-up works again.

Confedgrand - I imagine due to the avatar you are displaying that Aventinian called you a Yankee deliberately in order to annoy you. 'Yank' or 'Yankee' is a term used over here (often by the older generation Wink) to describe an American. I imagine it was supposed to come as a veiled insult - you did after all insult the Queen.

I can speak for the Scotch-Irish here in Appalachia and I THINK the same goes for Home-Scots and Ulster-Scots also that there is nothing we do better than fighting with one another! Very Happy
Everyday I see people here (in Fyffe) purposely insults one anothers churches or politics just to get something going on an otherwise dull day.
I think infighting must have been one of the Sacred Creeds of our ancestors, I guess it originated in Dal-Riata or somewhere Confused
Deo Vindice
WP
Gung-ho

Aventinian wrote:
I think your defamation of Queen Elizabeth II is disgraceful. Whatever you may think of monarch, she has sworn to represent the people of the UK and Crown Commonwealth and has performed exceptionally well as the British head of state over her reign. She is the rightful monarch of Scotland, even if you disregard the union between Scotland and England and she is a bloody good person.

You on the other hand are an ignorant Yankee who'd like to pretend that he has something to do with Scotland when in reality he doesn't know any more about the place than the average foreigner.

On a political note, I see you like to personify non-human ideas (such as "Scotland") - I believe that in effect qualifies you for being considered a bit of a lunatic. Do rocks tell you what they want too?

And incidently, I'm not a communist. In fact, I am a libertarian - the direct opposite; and yet I still think you're a t**t. I note you've yet to answer any of my well-made points regarding your obviously misinformed statements about this nation. Have you casually accepted that you don't know your arse from your elbow.


I disagree with this it should in fact be Queen Elizabeth the 1st and 2nd,

My reading of histroy seems to have missed the part when Elizabeth the 1st of England ruled Scotland as a Monarch

However the present incumbant of the UK throne has done some Good and it would be nice if the UK Monarchy ended on a high note.
azzuri

I agree Gung-Ho. Whether you a monarchist or a republican, you have to agree that in comparison to other monarchs, the Queen has performed her role well. Ending it on such a high note would be nice indeed! Smile
IF Convenor

Confedgrand wrote:
IF Convenor wrote:
I didn't realise Scotland had a Navy.

I suppose it would be quite easy to train nearly the whole of a non-existent Navy.


I suppose I should have taken baby steps and put it into simplified language for you. But as you seem bent on sarcasm, why bother? Anyone too indulged in their own existance to extrapolate basic information from simple text really isn't worth the air it takes to converse. And the fact that your masters second largest naval base is located in Scotland seems to be superfluous! But don't let me confuse you with facts, your mind is obviously made up!


Our "masters" may have naval bases in Scotland. That does not make the navy based there Scotland's Navy. Do you see the difference?
Confedgrand

SF102 wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
I agree. I just came by to stir up some fun and see if we couldn't get a good row going. And to a degree we did. It was fun. I really don't mean to seem so cruel in some of my posts, but how else do you get someone to really tell you what they think unless you piss them off first? LOL! Smile Y'all are a blast. And I look forward to blowing up your kilts again. Until tomorrow, Y'all come back now, ya hear? Smile


I've found the best way to get people to tell you what they think is by befriending them making them feel comfy (or taking 'em out and getting 'em ratted) By pissing people off all you're doing is getting their backs and getting a distorted angry view. I think your calling of the Queen a whore is disgraceful but at the end of the day you're just a font and in that respect you can and will ignored by meself.


What you've found is a way to get the sugar coated version. Which is never the truth. If you want to know what a man really thinks get him to tell you at the top of his lungs. Only then will the real truth come out. And yes, I called the german queen a whore. It was the most disrespectful thing I could think of at the time. And she has earned my disrespect and animosity. And it would be dishonorable not to give someone what they've earned! Smile So please, go be offended to the best of your ability! That and some pocket change might buy you a cup of coffee. The fact of the matter is that the combination of your useless queen with your mindless parliment has made england the laughing stock of the planet earth! You are subjects, not citizens. Merely the property of your government. What? You don't believe me? Then please tell me the name of your local gun store and where you go hunting! LOL! Smile Or the parameters of what you're allowed to do to defend yourself against crime! What little common sense there is left in the world has completely abandoned the UK and all of her former slave states. You've gone from people to sheeple! And that's baaaaad! Smile
Confedgrand

azzuri wrote:
Christ almighty - the Aventinian wind-up works again.

Confedgrand - I imagine due to the avatar you are displaying that Aventinian called you a Yankee deliberately in order to annoy you. 'Yank' or 'Yankee' is a term used over here (often by the older generation Wink) to describe an American. I imagine it was supposed to come as a veiled insult - you did after all insult the Queen.


That's hilarious. And I find it quite interesting that someone would be so self-deprecating as to make themselves look so stupid to pass an insult. I wasn’t aware that intellectual suicide was part of the current culture. But being as that the rest of your country is committing suicide on a slow but daily basis, I’m not surprised!
Confedgrand

Gung-ho wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
I think your defamation of Queen Elizabeth II is disgraceful. Whatever you may think of monarch, she has sworn to represent the people of the UK and Crown Commonwealth and has performed exceptionally well as the British head of state over her reign. She is the rightful monarch of Scotland, even if you disregard the union between Scotland and England and she is a bloody good person.

You on the other hand are an ignorant Yankee who'd like to pretend that he has something to do with Scotland when in reality he doesn't know any more about the place than the average foreigner.

On a political note, I see you like to personify non-human ideas (such as "Scotland") - I believe that in effect qualifies you for being considered a bit of a lunatic. Do rocks tell you what they want too?

And incidently, I'm not a communist. In fact, I am a libertarian - the direct opposite; and yet I still think you're a t**t. I note you've yet to answer any of my well-made points regarding your obviously misinformed statements about this nation. Have you casually accepted that you don't know your arse from your elbow.


I disagree with this it should in fact be Queen Elizabeth the 1st and 2nd,

My reading of histroy seems to have missed the part when Elizabeth the 1st of England ruled Scotland as a Monarch

However the present incumbant of the UK throne has done some Good and it would be nice if the UK Monarchy ended on a high note.


The only "high note" is Harry's drug use!
Confedgrand

IF Convenor wrote:
Confedgrand wrote:
IF Convenor wrote:
I didn't realise Scotland had a Navy.

I suppose it would be quite easy to train nearly the whole of a non-existent Navy.


I suppose I should have taken baby steps and put it into simplified language for you. But as you seem bent on sarcasm, why bother? Anyone too indulged in their own existance to extrapolate basic information from simple text really isn't worth the air it takes to converse. And the fact that your masters second largest naval base is located in Scotland seems to be superfluous! But don't let me confuse you with facts, your mind is obviously made up!


Our "masters" may have naval bases in Scotland. That does not make the navy based there Scotland's Navy. Do you see the difference?


Before working there I would have agreed with you. But after the fact I would suggest you discuss this with the Scotsmen that work there. They seem to think it's their Navy. And since they were buying the pints I wasn't about to argue! Smile
Rinty

t

First of all I thank you for confirming through your dictionary definitions that socialist and republican are not mutually exclusive.

I too am a descendent of Scots royalty, as is the current Queen. I can trace my family back to macbeth and others but that means nothing to me other than interest in my history and culture.

The Royals families that fought for land and power across Europe and the world are more or less the same extended family. When we got to WW1 the kaiser, tsar and King of UK were all cousins and could have passed for brothers.

To make Scotland independent it would be ludicrous to hand a hereditary state role to a foreign person by virtue of who they were related to. I would rather have a president who has emigrated from abroad to make their life in Scotland then a descendent of some King who used the people of Scotland for his own aims.

I am not an anti-loyalist as I am loyal, like my forefathers in the covenanters, to the people of Scotland, not to a crown. As for communist, then I probably qualify if you are using the american definition of comunist which to me amounts to someone who doesnt agree that america should rule the world.
Aventinian

sandmountainslim wrote:
Aventinian wrote:


You on the other hand are an ignorant Yankee .


Laughing Tom will blow a gasket when he reads that!
I think I would rather rape his dog and steal his breakfast than call him a Yankee Laughing

Couldn't you have just called him a b****rd or something?


Not to worry, I had a friend at school from the south. If I'd called him a Yankee he'd probably have done the same... on this occasion I'm just being a bit of a wind-up merchant. Wink

Quote:
I personally also support the members of the SRSM and feel that there are no finer patriots to be found anywhere.


Wouldn't have had you lot pegged as socialists...

Gung-ho wrote:
I disagree with this it should in fact be Queen Elizabeth the 1st and 2nd,


Well it's law, the Queen can call herself what she likes - I'm sure you're familiar with MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate. There's also the well known justification, viz: that she is the second Elizabeth to reign in of the kingdoms of the UK. Presumably if there was a James next in line, he'd be called James VIII of the UK.

Quote:
However the present incumbant of the UK throne has done some Good and it would be nice if the UK Monarchy ended on a high note.


I'm glad to hear it. I'd consider that to be a pretty mature attitude to the whole situation. I have at times considered myself a republican, but I have never gone down the route of name-calling or being unpleasant about an old woman who does her best in the position she has found herself.

Confedgrand wrote:
You are subjects, not citizens. Merely the property of your government.


Actually that's not been true for many, many years - we are (in law) "citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies" or - in virtually all official terms, British/UK Citizens.

A British subject was an entirely different thing and mostly referred to people who were subject to the British crown, but not the UK Government (so no, not owned by the government) - Canadians and Australians for example.

Quote:
What? You don't believe me? Then please tell me the name of your local gun store and where you go hunting! LOL! Smile


When you tell me where you have to go to gamble and where you can smoke cannabis without being arrested. Oh, and while we're at it - why your government won't trust you with a bottle of absinthe.

Quote:
Or the parameters of what you're allowed to do to defend yourself against crime! What little common sense there is left in the world has completely abandoned the UK and all of her former slave states. You've gone from people to sheeple! And that's baaaaad! Smile


Despite all the bullshit, there's a great deal you can get away with in defending your home. The famous case of that farmer was quite right in my opinion - he shot a man in the back as he was running out of his garden, with an unlicensed shotgun - and then he didn't bother to phone an ambulance or the police for a ridiculous amount of time, in fact he actually drove over to tell his neighbours about it first! If you don't throw people like that in prison then I don't consider you very civilised.

Incidently, I'd far rather live in a truly free country - where I have no chance of having a gun pointed at me by a police constable for violating a traffic law, where there aren't signs banning me from walking on the grass everywhere etc. etc.
sandmountainslim

Aventinian wrote:


Wouldn't have had you lot pegged as socialists...

[.

I am not a Socialist, I do think the SRSM are fine patriots however, they bring attention to and honour Scottish history and heroes of the past in a great way, Socialists or not.
I can't say for sure but I believe that Scott Ellison is the ONLY American Socialist in ScotWatch, maybe Tom knows for sure Confused
Deo Vindice
WP
neil8r

Confedgrand wrote:

I called the german queen a whore. It was the most disrespectful thing I could think of at the time. And she has earned my disrespect and animosity.

How pray tell has she earned your disrespect and animosity? What has she done to you or your country that pisses you off so much.

Confedgrand wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the combination of your useless queen with your mindless parliment has made england the laughing stock of the planet earth!

Now when you say England do you mean England or like most imbecilic Americans do you actually mean the UK? There is a rather large destinction.

Confedgrand wrote:

You are subjects, not citizens.

Yet again you are wrong, we are citizens. If you can show me any real evidence to say otherwise i'd be hugely surprised

Confedgrand wrote:

Merely the property of your government. What? You don't believe me? Then please tell me the name of your local gun store and where you go hunting! LOL! Smile

We are not American's, we don't need or want automatic weapons to kill animals. Is it a Phallic thing for Americans the whole gun ownership thing?
sandmountainslim

neil8r wrote:

We are not American's, we don't need or want automatic weapons to kill animals. Is it a Phallic thing for Americans the whole gun ownership thing?


I hate to butt in on your argument with Tom but speaking solely for myself, I NEVER kill animals nor would I unless I was starving to death or my life was in danger.
I do however own an AKM, two k98k rifles, a Beretta 35 and a SAA 44-40 along with several thousand rounds of ammunition (mostly Chinese and East German surplus which I bought in bulk after the collapse of the DDR), none of these are hunting weapons by any means.
They are weapons for the protection of myself, my family, my home and my community if the need (God forbid) ever arises. It is far better to have equipment and never need it than to need equipment and not have it , in my opinion. Anyone who believes the American Empire or the civility of Western society in general will last forever is a fool, there will someday be a breakdown as was the case with Rome and when this happens there will be no police forces or soldiers at our call.
Deo Vindice
WP
neil8r

sandmountainslim wrote:

I do however own an AKM, two k98k rifles, a Beretta 35 and a SAA 44-40 along with several thousand rounds of ammunition (mostly Chinese and East German surplus which I bought in bulk after the collapse of the DDR),


And do you store your arsenal in a locked cabinet so as not to accidently come into the vicinity of children?
sandmountainslim

neil8r wrote:
sandmountainslim wrote:

I do however own an AKM, two k98k rifles, a Beretta 35 and a SAA 44-40 along with several thousand rounds of ammunition (mostly Chinese and East German surplus which I bought in bulk after the collapse of the DDR),


And do you store your arsenal in a locked cabinet so as not to accidently come into the vicinity of children?


I store it in a locked fireproof safe.
WP
neil8r

sandmountainslim wrote:
neil8r wrote:
sandmountainslim wrote:

I do however own an AKM, two k98k rifles, a Beretta 35 and a SAA 44-40 along with several thousand rounds of ammunition (mostly Chinese and East German surplus which I bought in bulk after the collapse of the DDR),


And do you store your arsenal in a locked cabinet so as not to accidently come into the vicinity of children?


I store it in a locked fireproof vault.
WP


So i take it when someone suddenly breaks into your house with guns, you politely ask them to hold on a sec while you jump down to unlock your vault and get out yir second world war German rifles to deal with them?
sandmountainslim

neil8r wrote:
sandmountainslim wrote:
neil8r wrote:</