Religous debates and questions [2]

"he is intelligent enough to listen and reform."

Those two words have never featured much in the Catholic Church history- I suspect they will have to fetch a dictionary and look them up first!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah well Id like to see them in court too- but at least heads of state dont get their position by claiming an invisible super being told them they could have it and that they are outside of all law except the law they make up.

I know the concept of "Divine Right of Kings" has fallen out of favor.
Remind me again why you're all subjects of your sovereign?  

Remind me again why you're all subjects of your sovereign?- David

Practicality- so we dont have to give the job to a politician.
And they dont get to make any laws, or do much really save wave and advise. The Commons makes all the laws.

So there's no talk of God and Magic Rocks at coronations anymore then?

I thought it was to milk you Americans of your cash when you come over in your socks and sandals.

If America wasnt there, I reckon the crowns income stream would be decimated.

Which is it exactly you're objecting to, Lance, the socks or the sandals?  

My point was just that there's a whole lot of medieval rigamarole that goes with kings, queens and popes. I'm sure there are a few people who take it all seriously, but the vast majority of people in the world recognize them as political offices.

Now about the cranberry juice....

The Monarch is not a political office- not even vaguely, it has no real powers hey were all given to Parliament long ago- the Monarch is a figure head, a rallying point.
God does come into to it as the Monarch is Head of the Church of England by tradition.

As to the magic stone- thats Scottish and it predates Christianity by a significant amount of time and has nothing to do with God.
It a much older belief than that- that the Monarch and the land are one.

so if you get Indipendance Petty you wont have the monarchy any more, you will be a presidential nation without a king or queen, will that feel weird?

Well... considering early people populate the country some 363000 years before the bible was made up... im sure they had to believe in something. It is normally the people in charge that decide what they believe in so why not monarch=god/land therefore is the boss?

so if you get Indipendance Petty you wont have the monarchy any more- Figg

You need to brush up your history Mrs Figg- when the Act of Union took place the english were in a Monarch dilemma- they solved it by making King James of Scotland King of Britain- its actually our Monarchy, who can only be made a Monarch if they are crowned on the Stone of Scone, which is Scottish.
The real question is, should we let England keep it too?

"James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the English and Scottish crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death."- wiki

Mrs Figg wrote:so if you get Indipendance Petty you wont have the monarchy any more, you will be a presidential nation without a king or queen, will that feel weird?

Much as I like Presidential systems, my understanding is that Scotland doesn't automatically have to give up the monarchy if they leave.  That wasn't the case for any of the former British colonies or even Ireland, though most of them eventually became republics.

Edit: simulpost with Petty

Thats very true Eldo- the Monarch is currently head of quite a lot of countries round the world, including of course, Australia. So she is Chris and Orwell's Queen too.

Hmmm. I'd been under the impression that the crown estate and crown lands were still nominally under the control of the Monarch, but Wikipedia says not. There must be at least some things that they own, aren't there?

I wounder how much different it is for a Pope when it comes down to it. Certainly a Pope is a figurehead and a rallying point for a billion people, but I've always understood that the true power is controlled by the cardinals.

Petty you need to brush up on your history, the Hanoverians and the Windsors are German and certainly not Scottish. We cut Charles Stuarts head off if you remember, so its certainly NOT your monarchy and hasnt been for a couple of hundreds of years.

Plus not all the Yes voters want the monarchy to rule over Scotland after indipendance, its a bit embarrassing for Salmond, who seems to want his cake and to eat it too.
The leader of the Scottish independence campaign Dennis Canavan has said the newborn Prince George of Cambridge should never become King of Scotland.
Today Dennis Canavan, chairman of Yes Scotland, said if Scots vote "Yes", then a second referendum should be held to decide the head of state.
The former Labour MP and Independent MSP told Scotland on Sunday:
"As to the possibility of another King George, it is important to remember that true democracy is based on the sovereignty of the people rather than the sovereignty of any monarch.
"In an independent Scotland, the people of Scotland should therefore be given an early opportunity to decide whether they want to retain the monarchy or choose an elected head of state.
"Personally, I favour the latter option, because a hereditary head of state is an affront to democracy and a complete anachronism in a modern 21st century democracy."
This view jars with the official line from the ruling Scottish National Party, which called for the referendum and backs a continuation of the monarchy in Scotland.

Canavan is an independent MP Chairing the Yes campaign advisory body, he is a former prominent (in Scotland) Labour MP.
He has a view, but thats all it is, not policy.
The official position of the SNP is for the Monarchy to be maintained.

"Dennis Canavan said a national referendum should be held on who should be head of state, if Scotland votes for independence in next year's referendum.  Mr Canavan stressed he was speaking in a personal capacity."- BBC

Once we have independence there may well be further down the line moves towards abolishing the Monarchy- that, and this is rather the point, would be up for the people of Scotland  to decide- something we cant do now.

And yes whilst the blood line of the throne has changed the settlement between Monarchy and constituent parts of the UK has not- they might not be Scots by blood anymore, but they still sit on a Sottish throne, crowned in a Scottish ceremony on a Scottish symbol of power and authority.

Oh Petty... you always have a straw to clutch at. The act of union was that. It unified the crown and therefore stopped being a Scottish thing. Not everything in the universe is Scottish.

At least the Scottish and the English can be united in their mutual desire to tell everyone how much they really matter, guys, come on.  Guys?

The act of union was that. It unified the crown and therefore stopped being a Scottish thing. Not everything in the universe is Scottish.- Lance

Never claimed it was. But the stone of Destiny is, the blood line that was monarch over the Union at inception (and for quite some time afterwards) was, and the Scots have just as much a claim on the monarchy as any other part of the UK- an as Eldo pointed out when the 'colonies' got their independence they got to choose if they wanted to keep the monarch as head of state or not- why should that be any different for Scotland?
And if I may say saying that the Act of Union meant it stopped being a Scottish thing is a very English ingrained attitude- it didnt stop being Scottish it expanded to become British.

What? These things were happening before you even had a country!! This is the sort of shit you lot lap up because you dont have much history. So... we may be a small island that nobody listens to any more (thanks ruskies!!) and we may spend most of our time arguing between ourselves but that is what we do best. Take the piss out of everyone, including ourselves!!!!

You lot will be doing the same in 100 years when you are the biggest dog in the yard any more!!

Hey, I wish that America never started being an imperialist power in the first place (I think it's a betrayal of the supposed values of democracy), so I welcome us taking a step back from front and center on the world stage.  I just hope that we handle the transition better than people like Cameron.

Petty... that it was I was getting at. It is a british thing now. If scotland is no longer part of the u.k then I agree you should be able to choose. If not then dont you just change the law in your country now that the laws are yours yo change?

Well, to be fair Eldo, we are still one of the strongest powers in the world, economically, militarily, culturally. And I think Obama might have noticed that recently now his is scraping about for someone to stick by them and not make it look like the U.S is throwing its weight around and ignoring everyone else as usual.

Americans need to wake up and realise what is going on in the world. You ate going to need your friends more than your friends are going to need you. Took us a while to realise that ourselves but we eventually got to that point.

Yeah no one in their right mind (other than nationalist pricks) would seriously deny that the UK is still a great power.  Although they have mostly followed America's lead on foreign policy since Suez, so it'll be interesting to see what happens in the aftermath of the Commons refusing to go into Syria.  America has been pissing away our soft power and global influence since Iraq 2003 anyway.  I wouldn't be surprised if future historians pinpoint that date as the beginning of the end of American hegemony.

It's going to take a long time to rebuild our international relationships on a platform of equality, though. Maybe you guys could give us some tips?

If not then dont you just change the law in your country now that the laws are yours yo change?- Lance

I'm not sure what you mean by this- if the laws were ours to change there would be no need for Independence.

I wouldn't be surprised if future historians pinpoint that date as the beginning of the end of American hegemony.- Eldo

Didnt someone- Russia or Syria- say Obama's decision to go to Congress and the lack of international support for them marked the beginning of the American retreat?