:blob:Oh c`mon Bear. You`ve said a lot worse than that an never got a red......
sheesh !!!:-(
but
red`s a good colour
Scotland might just show the rest of us the way to reset social democracy
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
:blob:Oh c`mon Bear. You`ve said a lot worse than that an never got a red......
sheesh !!!:-(
but
red`s a good colour
Every single post you make mentions the monarchy. It doesn't matter what thread it's about - it could be about the Large Hadron Collider - but you still always manage to bring up the monarchy in every single post.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
Well, the Large Hadron Collider is a Royal Family plot keep Arabs down, at the behest of their Jewish masters in Israel.
Why? Because JEWS, JEWS, JEWS, JOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ!
I wondered why I saw Prince Philip at the Large Hadron Collider's controls cackling maniacally and shouting incoherently something almost unintelligible which included what sounded like "EVIL ZIONIST PLOT".
Forget Barnett. What we need is a Barnet formula
By Richard Littlejohn
23 September 2014
Daily Mail
Say what you like about the Scottish referendum question, at least it had the virtue of clarity. Should Scotland be an independent country: Yes or No?
Despite the outright lies and the inevitable attempts to deliberately muddy the waters, people were in no doubt about what they were voting for. Yes, Scotland would go it alone. No, it would remain part of the United Kingdom.
In the end, the ‘selectorate’ chosen by Alex Salmond settled decisively for the status quo and that should have been that. Everybody back on the stagecoach.
Mister Ed, seen here on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, claims correctly that we don’t need a new parliament, another layer of politicians and their attendant civil servants. But he’s the only person even raising that question
Unfortunately, the Westminster political class panicked at the 11th hour on the basis of a single opinion poll and attempted to bribe the Scots into rejecting full independence with the promise of more powers.
So a simple Yes or No became ‘Vote No get Yes Lite’.
We can argue until the Aberdeen Angus come home about whether ‘The Vow’ signed by all three Westminster party leaders was really necessary. But what’s done is done.
If Scotland had voted No without the promise of ‘devo max’, there’d still have been grumbling south of the border about the democratic deficit, the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula — for about five minutes. And then it would have been forgotten again for another 15 years.
Instead, the party conference season is now dominated by the English Question(s). Should Scottish MPs be prevented from voting on purely English laws? Should England have the same taxation and legislative powers as Scotland?
Yes or No?
What’s not to understand? The vast majority of Scots, never mind the English, would vote Yes to both propostions, given the chance. Just about everyone accepts that the present arrangement is grossly unfair.
So why don’t the politicians just go away and get on with it?
Call Me Dave put it plainly enough on Friday morning: English votes for English laws would now proceed in lock-step with further devolution for Scotland.
Familiar to most Scots: The Scottish referendum voting form
This was hailed by his sycophants as a stroke of political genius, designed to scupper Labour and seize the mantle of Ukip. We were supposed to think he’d planned it all along.
That’s not how it looks from outside the Bubble. This wasn’t a Machiavellian masterstroke.
Cameron got lucky. He mishandled Scotland from start to finish with his usual arrogance and lack of attention to detail, but won on away goals. Not for the first time, Dave painted himself into a corner, yet still managed to walk out over the paint.
Never underestimate the ability of politicians to make everything about them. Cameron is now posing as the Great Reformer who will set the English free from Scottish oppression and smite those pesky Faragistas in their rundown seaside redoubts.
The Lib Dems, as usual, are facing three different ways at once and will almost certainly renege on whatever it is they eventually agree to. So where does this leave Ed Miliband? Rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying: paddle, creek, up, etc.
The Labour leader’s risible, self-serving proposal is to bury the whole West Lothian Question in a never-ending ‘constitutional convention’, but not until after he wins the next election.
He won’t even concede that it’s wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on English matters because he needs the support of his dwindling Tartan Army to form a government at Westminster.
Miliband says you can’t have two classes of MP. But we’ve already got that. English MPs are travelling second-class and English voters are stuck in the cattle trucks at the back of the train, while the Scots empty the buffet car of miniature bottles of Bell’s and send the bill to London.
Mister Ed claims correctly that we don’t need a new parliament, another layer of politicians and their attendant civil servants. But he’s the only person even raising that question.
All he has to do is promise that when matters arise which exclusively affect England, his MPs leave the chamber and retire to Annie’s Bar for the duration.
What we don’t need is an interminable imbroglio over something which can be settled amicably over coffee. The small print can be worked out later. But there’s nothing politicians like more than arguing about politics. It saves them having to address the problems which really concern the people who pay their wages.
Over the next two weeks, the party conferences are being held in Manchester and Birmingham. They might as well be held on the Moon.
For a few days, the political class will relocate operations to hermetically sealed conference centres, where they will mix with exactly the same people they see all year round.
It has been said the Westminster ‘elite’ didn’t understand the electorate north of the border. No surprises there, then. They don’t even understand the electorate north of the North Circular Road.
Maybe they should try venturing a few miles up the Northern Line to the London Borough of Barnet, which contains Mrs Thatcher’s old Finchley constituency.
While Westminster is obsessing about the Barnett Formula, the people of Barnet are fretting about everything from high taxes and red tape to the cost of living and mass immigration.
They’re fed up with being labelled ‘rich’ and dragged into the 40p higher tax rate simply because they’re working hard to earn the kind of money necessary to pay everyday bills soaring ahead of inflation. They resent having to pay stamp duty and inheritance tax designed for the super-wealthy on their modest suburban semis, despite the Tories’ election promise to raise the threshold to £1 million.
They’re furious about open borders which saw migrants from eastern Europe set up an insanitary shanty town at Hendon football ground.
They’re angry that Barnet accident and emergency department has been swamped because the NHS has closed the A&E at another hospital six miles away.
They’re worried about waiting lists and the virtual impossibility of registering with a local GP surgery or dentist.
They’d like to know why the local police station only opens Monday to Friday, from noon to 8pm, and why they’re advised to use the online crime reporting service to avoid queues.
They’re not thrilled with local council services being outsourced to Capita, and having to pay a minimum of £55 to get ‘bulky’ items of household waste like fridges collected. And don’t get them started on parking.
So ask them if Scottish MPs should continue to be allowed to vote to set taxes and pass laws for England and you’ll get short shrift.
What kind of idiot thinks that’s a good idea?
Should we set up an expensive Leveson-style inquiry to draw up a blueprint for far-reaching constitutional change after the next general election?
Don’t be so ridiculous.
Is it fair that the people of Easterhouse in Glasgow receive £1,400 a year more in subsidy from the Treasury than the people of East Finchley?
Of course not. And while we’re at it, if it’s wrong for Scots to make English laws, why is it right for unelected judges and bureaucrats in Brussels to impose unwanted and absurd laws, rules and regulations upon us?
Barnet may be in north London, but it’s not the trendy part where the political class live.
Miliband’s house is only five or six miles away, but he wouldn’t know Barnet from Barnsley.
The people of Barnet are as far removed from the Westminster Bubble as those who live in Bolton, Bognor and Bury St Edmunds. These are the voters who will decide the next election.
Despite the hullabaloo of the Yes campaign, the secret people of Scotland saved the Union.
The Westminster politicians should spend less time playing politics, and start paying attention to the secret people of England.
Never mind Barnett, it’s time to come up with a Barnet Formula.
Hi-viz jackets are the scourge of modern Britain. Now they are even being worn to count votes
Staff at the count in Edinburgh were wearing hi-viz jackets. Indoors.
On Orkney, they all had matching black T-shirts with ‘Counting Staff’ printed on the back, along with plastic-laminated photo IDs hanging round their necks.
Why?
It’s not as if they need ID. Most of them are related to each other. Maybe it’s so you can tell them apart.
By Richard Littlejohn
23 September 2014
Daily Mail
Say what you like about the Scottish referendum question, at least it had the virtue of clarity. Should Scotland be an independent country: Yes or No?
Despite the outright lies and the inevitable attempts to deliberately muddy the waters, people were in no doubt about what they were voting for. Yes, Scotland would go it alone. No, it would remain part of the United Kingdom.
In the end, the ‘selectorate’ chosen by Alex Salmond settled decisively for the status quo and that should have been that. Everybody back on the stagecoach.
Mister Ed, seen here on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, claims correctly that we don’t need a new parliament, another layer of politicians and their attendant civil servants. But he’s the only person even raising that question
Unfortunately, the Westminster political class panicked at the 11th hour on the basis of a single opinion poll and attempted to bribe the Scots into rejecting full independence with the promise of more powers.
So a simple Yes or No became ‘Vote No get Yes Lite’.
We can argue until the Aberdeen Angus come home about whether ‘The Vow’ signed by all three Westminster party leaders was really necessary. But what’s done is done.
If Scotland had voted No without the promise of ‘devo max’, there’d still have been grumbling south of the border about the democratic deficit, the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula — for about five minutes. And then it would have been forgotten again for another 15 years.
Instead, the party conference season is now dominated by the English Question(s). Should Scottish MPs be prevented from voting on purely English laws? Should England have the same taxation and legislative powers as Scotland?
Yes or No?
What’s not to understand? The vast majority of Scots, never mind the English, would vote Yes to both propostions, given the chance. Just about everyone accepts that the present arrangement is grossly unfair.
So why don’t the politicians just go away and get on with it?
Call Me Dave put it plainly enough on Friday morning: English votes for English laws would now proceed in lock-step with further devolution for Scotland.
Familiar to most Scots: The Scottish referendum voting form
This was hailed by his sycophants as a stroke of political genius, designed to scupper Labour and seize the mantle of Ukip. We were supposed to think he’d planned it all along.
That’s not how it looks from outside the Bubble. This wasn’t a Machiavellian masterstroke.
Cameron got lucky. He mishandled Scotland from start to finish with his usual arrogance and lack of attention to detail, but won on away goals. Not for the first time, Dave painted himself into a corner, yet still managed to walk out over the paint.
Never underestimate the ability of politicians to make everything about them. Cameron is now posing as the Great Reformer who will set the English free from Scottish oppression and smite those pesky Faragistas in their rundown seaside redoubts.
The Lib Dems, as usual, are facing three different ways at once and will almost certainly renege on whatever it is they eventually agree to. So where does this leave Ed Miliband? Rearrange the following words into a well-known phrase or saying: paddle, creek, up, etc.
The Labour leader’s risible, self-serving proposal is to bury the whole West Lothian Question in a never-ending ‘constitutional convention’, but not until after he wins the next election.
He won’t even concede that it’s wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on English matters because he needs the support of his dwindling Tartan Army to form a government at Westminster.
Miliband says you can’t have two classes of MP. But we’ve already got that. English MPs are travelling second-class and English voters are stuck in the cattle trucks at the back of the train, while the Scots empty the buffet car of miniature bottles of Bell’s and send the bill to London.
Mister Ed claims correctly that we don’t need a new parliament, another layer of politicians and their attendant civil servants. But he’s the only person even raising that question.
All he has to do is promise that when matters arise which exclusively affect England, his MPs leave the chamber and retire to Annie’s Bar for the duration.
What we don’t need is an interminable imbroglio over something which can be settled amicably over coffee. The small print can be worked out later. But there’s nothing politicians like more than arguing about politics. It saves them having to address the problems which really concern the people who pay their wages.
Over the next two weeks, the party conferences are being held in Manchester and Birmingham. They might as well be held on the Moon.
For a few days, the political class will relocate operations to hermetically sealed conference centres, where they will mix with exactly the same people they see all year round.
It has been said the Westminster ‘elite’ didn’t understand the electorate north of the border. No surprises there, then. They don’t even understand the electorate north of the North Circular Road.
Maybe they should try venturing a few miles up the Northern Line to the London Borough of Barnet, which contains Mrs Thatcher’s old Finchley constituency.
While Westminster is obsessing about the Barnett Formula, the people of Barnet are fretting about everything from high taxes and red tape to the cost of living and mass immigration.
They’re fed up with being labelled ‘rich’ and dragged into the 40p higher tax rate simply because they’re working hard to earn the kind of money necessary to pay everyday bills soaring ahead of inflation. They resent having to pay stamp duty and inheritance tax designed for the super-wealthy on their modest suburban semis, despite the Tories’ election promise to raise the threshold to £1 million.
They’re furious about open borders which saw migrants from eastern Europe set up an insanitary shanty town at Hendon football ground.
They’re angry that Barnet accident and emergency department has been swamped because the NHS has closed the A&E at another hospital six miles away.
They’re worried about waiting lists and the virtual impossibility of registering with a local GP surgery or dentist.
They’d like to know why the local police station only opens Monday to Friday, from noon to 8pm, and why they’re advised to use the online crime reporting service to avoid queues.
They’re not thrilled with local council services being outsourced to Capita, and having to pay a minimum of £55 to get ‘bulky’ items of household waste like fridges collected. And don’t get them started on parking.
So ask them if Scottish MPs should continue to be allowed to vote to set taxes and pass laws for England and you’ll get short shrift.
What kind of idiot thinks that’s a good idea?
Should we set up an expensive Leveson-style inquiry to draw up a blueprint for far-reaching constitutional change after the next general election?
Don’t be so ridiculous.
Is it fair that the people of Easterhouse in Glasgow receive £1,400 a year more in subsidy from the Treasury than the people of East Finchley?
Of course not. And while we’re at it, if it’s wrong for Scots to make English laws, why is it right for unelected judges and bureaucrats in Brussels to impose unwanted and absurd laws, rules and regulations upon us?
Barnet may be in north London, but it’s not the trendy part where the political class live.
Miliband’s house is only five or six miles away, but he wouldn’t know Barnet from Barnsley.
The people of Barnet are as far removed from the Westminster Bubble as those who live in Bolton, Bognor and Bury St Edmunds. These are the voters who will decide the next election.
Despite the hullabaloo of the Yes campaign, the secret people of Scotland saved the Union.
The Westminster politicians should spend less time playing politics, and start paying attention to the secret people of England.
Never mind Barnett, it’s time to come up with a Barnet Formula.
Hi-viz jackets are the scourge of modern Britain. Now they are even being worn to count votes
Staff at the count in Edinburgh were wearing hi-viz jackets. Indoors.
On Orkney, they all had matching black T-shirts with ‘Counting Staff’ printed on the back, along with plastic-laminated photo IDs hanging round their necks.
Why?
It’s not as if they need ID. Most of them are related to each other. Maybe it’s so you can tell them apart.
Last edited:
This is about the UK so why would the Royals be an unmentionable subject. You were the one who posted that stupid pic of her standing in a sheep pasture wearing a cloak that had most of the material on the ground. The Monarchy was based on being a thug and that hasn't changed. If the UK is ruled by the Royals they don't need a civil government, if they are ruled by a civil government then they don't need the Royals being on social welfare to the tune of how much? Little questions like that are ones you refuse to answer so I pit you in the troll dept and treat you like the tard you are.
The Queen is quoted as saying things would go bad for Scotland if they voted yes is what a thug says and since she in neck deep in the dept that does those very things to people she doesn't like. Why should she and her inbreed klan get any respect. No wonder your country is so fukked up.
What is it now, 1,000 years of almost perpetual war, against the most defenseless people you can find. You want a pat on the back for that?
Like I said before, if you haven't defeated the Muslim after going after them for 1,000 years perhaps it isn't meant to be. The warmongers go to other lands to kill and maim, that is the whole of Europe for at least 500 years and not once have the Muslims invaded the UK. You might have to spread the bull to cover that up but I don't have to accept it as fact as it isn't a fact it is an intentional; lie and that puts you at the bottom of the list when morality is the topic.
What makes you think she was standing in a sheep pasture? I can't see any sheep at all in that picture.
This thread is about the Scottish independence referendum, not about the Royals. Yet every post you make, on every thread, mentions the Royals. You're obsessed by them.
So the Queen, an 88 year old lady who has never so much as hurt a fly in her life, is a thug?
The UK isn't ruled by the Royals. The Royals aren't politicians. The government rules the UK. The situation is exactly the same in your country, too, don't forget. They are also YOUR royals.
By the way, have you got any evidence that the Royals are on "social welfare"?
So anyone who rightly warns the Scots that an independent Scotland would be bad for Scotland and its finances is a "thug"?
Also, you have just called the majority of the Scottish people, and the majority of the people in Britain as a whole, "thugs".
Also, the United Kingdom is the Queen's kingdom, over which she reigns. Why shouldn't she be able to show her concern when there was the prospect that her kingdom might split up?
The Queen isn't neck deep in debt. She's worth millions.
I'd be careful what you say, if I were you. You may wake up one morning and find the ISIS flag fluttering over your national parliament and find that Canada has become an Islamic caliphate. Then what?
She used to be worth billions.
Nah, you fooled us with that BS when it was the IRA. We ain't buying it this time.
The Royals are worth £44.5 billion.
Thankfully, Obama's not listening to you. He's doing the right thing (which is a first) and is bombing ISIS.
It's naive lefties like you who would be responsible for America or Britain or Canada becoming an Islamic caliphate.
******************
David Cameron will apologise to the Queen after he was overheard saying she "purred" on hearing the result of the Scottish independence referendum.
A camera crew recorded the PM telling former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg he had "never heard someone so happy" as the Queen after Scotland voted "no".
As is traditional, the PM and the monarch meet every week for a private conversation. What the two talk is about is not supposed to be mentioned in public.
David Cameron to apologise to Queen over 'purred' remark
25 September 2014
BBC News
The moment Cameron says the Queen 'purred down the line - YouTube
David Cameron can be heard saying: "She purred down the line"
David Cameron will apologise to the Queen after he was overheard saying she "purred" on hearing the result of the Scottish independence referendum.
A camera crew recorded the PM telling former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg he had "never heard someone so happy" as the Queen after Scotland voted "no".
Mr Cameron has said he is "embarrassed" and "extremely sorry" for the remarks.
He has contacted Buckingham Palace and will apologise in person when he next meets the Queen, Downing Street said.
Buckingham Palace has not commented.
'Very nervous'
Last Thursday, Scottish voters rejected independence from the UK by 55% to 45%.
Speaking in New York, Mr Cameron told Mr Bloomberg he had phoned the Queen to tell her the result.
"She purred down the line," he said. "I've never heard someone so happy."
He added: "It should never have been that close.
"It wasn't in the end, but there was a time in the middle of the campaign when it felt... I've said I want to find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through, you know. It was very nervous."
Following the referendum result, the Queen said she believed Scotland would unite in a "spirit of mutual respect and support", despite "strong feelings and contrasting emotions".
BBC News - David Cameron to apologise to Queen over 'purred' remark
David Cameron to apologise to Queen over 'purred' remark
25 September 2014
BBC News
The moment Cameron says the Queen 'purred down the line - YouTube
David Cameron can be heard saying: "She purred down the line"
David Cameron will apologise to the Queen after he was overheard saying she "purred" on hearing the result of the Scottish independence referendum.
A camera crew recorded the PM telling former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg he had "never heard someone so happy" as the Queen after Scotland voted "no".
Mr Cameron has said he is "embarrassed" and "extremely sorry" for the remarks.
He has contacted Buckingham Palace and will apologise in person when he next meets the Queen, Downing Street said.
Buckingham Palace has not commented.
'Very nervous'
Last Thursday, Scottish voters rejected independence from the UK by 55% to 45%.
Speaking in New York, Mr Cameron told Mr Bloomberg he had phoned the Queen to tell her the result.
"She purred down the line," he said. "I've never heard someone so happy."
He added: "Then she told me to take down my trousers and panties, and described in detail how she was spanking my bum whilst diddling my icky bits. It was the most astonishing revelation of my life! After a while, some sticky stuff came out of my Willy Wonka, and I felt shivery all over!"
25 September 2014
BBC News
The moment Cameron says the Queen 'purred down the line - YouTube
David Cameron can be heard saying: "She purred down the line"
David Cameron will apologise to the Queen after he was overheard saying she "purred" on hearing the result of the Scottish independence referendum.
A camera crew recorded the PM telling former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg he had "never heard someone so happy" as the Queen after Scotland voted "no".
Mr Cameron has said he is "embarrassed" and "extremely sorry" for the remarks.
He has contacted Buckingham Palace and will apologise in person when he next meets the Queen, Downing Street said.
Buckingham Palace has not commented.
'Very nervous'
Last Thursday, Scottish voters rejected independence from the UK by 55% to 45%.
Speaking in New York, Mr Cameron told Mr Bloomberg he had phoned the Queen to tell her the result.
"She purred down the line," he said. "I've never heard someone so happy."
He added: "Then she told me to take down my trousers and panties, and described in detail how she was spanking my bum whilst diddling my icky bits. It was the most astonishing revelation of my life! After a while, some sticky stuff came out of my Willy Wonka, and I felt shivery all over!"
Thank you for the reply. I don't agree with all you said and while I form a reply that is shy of the more colorful pronouns for you.
While I am doing that this is going to be used as a base for that reply. Along with that is the referendum issue. In 1967 the Queen gave independence to the 10 Provinces and 2 Territories. The formation of Canada didn't follow the instructions (and there were only 2) so that condition exists today. That means when Canada is committed to joint war ventures with the UK by mutual agreement then there is no independence and Alberta is Canada the same way ISIL has become ISIS. Fly a different flag and carry on doing what has always been done before then. WW! is a good example. That qualifies me as being able to comment on any subject that touches England or the Crown or the City of London. My family tree also makes me 50% English and 25% Irish and 25% German (the man) so that allows me to comment on 'my relatives' and their good tastes, or lack of.
Cameron to Apologize to Queen for Indiscretion — Naharnet
Prime Minister David Cameron will apologize to Queen Elizabeth II for disclosing details of a private conversation with her about the Scottish referendum.
Britain's leader was overheard telling former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that the monarch appeared relieved that the Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom.
Microphones picked up an unguarded Cameron describing how the queen "purred down the line" after hearing the results.
Conversations with the monarch are considered private and her views are rarely aired. Cameron said Wednesday he was sorry.
The bulk of my post is going to be about the above link and how Cameron is a public Servant so there are no private conversations as far as the 'voting public' goes when he is speaking on matters that are of importance to those people. Private would be a topic about how the best method to employ when the TP roll is empty. The Queen is the Head of State and per performances are to be examined if the public wants to. The Queen collects money from public funds so her conduct is also open for examination by any member of the public. She is on record as having said 'it would be bad for Scotland is the 'yes' side won so why should her reaction to the news of that outcome suddenly become a private matter? We get to chat about issues like that as we are both subjects to the same Queen.
That's good. That means I'm talking common sense then.
You can comment all you like. But that doesn't make you right.
The weekly meetings between the Head of State and the Head of Government are, as they have always been, private, personal and confidential.
When Cameron told Bloomberg that the Queen "purred" with delight when they spoke together over the Scottish referendum result, Cameron was wrong to do that. He was not supposed to tell him or anybody else in the world anything about what he and Her Majesty talked about. Even Blair never told anybody what he and the Queen spoke about, despite the best efforts of his witch of a wife. You wouldn't like it if someone went and discussed with someone else the details of your private conversations.
Hollleee Fukkk
Hollleee Fukkk
Hollleee Fukkk
The reason the creation of Canada didn't take the 2nd step that was specified in the independence from England is that a referendum to join as one Nation and passed only with a vote by the 'voters' is that it would have been soundlty defeated and back then bribes and intimidation wouldn't have worked. A threat will get you killed when you put it to a man that has a weapon and a will. (even more stupid to say it in a letter first) Look at these days and things haven't changed one bit in method, the getting away clean is long past. Admitting they have to clean up their act is not going to be possible so stepping aside for a few 100 years is the next best step.
Hollleee Fukkk
Hollleee Fukkk
The reason the creation of Canada didn't take the 2nd step that was specified in the independence from England is that a referendum to join as one Nation and passed only with a vote by the 'voters' is that it would have been soundlty defeated and back then bribes and intimidation wouldn't have worked. A threat will get you killed when you put it to a man that has a weapon and a will. (even more stupid to say it in a letter first) Look at these days and things haven't changed one bit in method, the getting away clean is long past. Admitting they have to clean up their act is not going to be possible so stepping aside for a few 100 years is the next best step.
You didn't get independence from England. You got independence from Britain.
And Queen Victoria back in 1867 didn't give independence to each individual part of Canada. She granted royal assent to the British North America Act on 29th March 1867.
On 1st July 1867, three British colonies became four provinces of the new dominion of Canada. The existing United Province of Canada was divided into the new provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and two other colonies, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, also became provinces of the new Dominion of Canada.
In the intervening years, more provinces and territories joined Canada, with the most recent being Nunavut in 1999.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. The Queen signed the document and she lived in England but you are right, it was the BNA of 1867.
CANADA: A COUNTRY WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION | FreedomClub CANADA
(in part)
January 1977
“It is therefore easy to see why Canada is not a confederation………….” [Dr. Maurice Ollivier, K.C., Joint Law Clerk, House of Commons, before the Special Committee on the British North America Act, 1935
“I have always contended, for reasons too long to enumerate here, that it [Canada] has not become either a confederation or a federal union.” [Dr. Ollivier, in a personal letter to Mr. Kuhl, May 30th, 1936]
FORWARD
There is probably no political issue in Canada on which there is more lack of information and more misinformation than on the constitutional question. The stalemate and the impasse which the governing authorities in Canada have reached on this question seem to indicate that there is and has been something very fundamentally awry in Canada’s constitutional history.
For almost half a century this controversy has been raging without a satisfactory solution having been arrived at. Many Canadians, myself included, have had enough of this bickering between politicians and are determined to do something to bring this internecine strife to an end.
The purpose of this booklet is to indicate in some measure what I as a member of the House of Commons and as a private citizen have attempted to do to bring order out of the constitutional chaos in which Canada finds herself. Democracy is successful only in proportion to the knowledge which people have with respect to their rights and privileges. It is my hope that the information contained in this brochure will assist Canadians to that end.
The referendum vote never took place, Walter Knudsun looked high and low for it. the UK should have a copy, they don't, Ottawa should have a copy (of the results) they don't.
Monarchy in the Canadian provinces
Main article: Monarchy in the Canadian provinces
In the Canadian federation, the provinces are each a separate jurisdiction of the Canadian Crown, wherein a hereditary monarch is the sovereign and head of state of each province, forming the core of its Westminster style parliamentary democracy.[13] As the institution from which the power of the state flows, the terms The Crown in Right of [Province], Her Majesty in Right of [Province], and The Queen in Right of [Province] may also be used to refer to the entire executive of the government in each jurisdiction. As the pinnacle of governance, the authority of the Crown in the province is symbolised through elements included in various government institutions' insignia, as well as their names, such as Court of Queen's Bench and Queen's Printer.
This is going to delay that other post, not eliminate it.
There are a lot of quotes that need to be examined so I'll just post the link for now.
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html
Canada's transition from a self-governing British colony into a fully independent state was an evolutionary process, which arose in such a gradual fashion that it is impossible to ascribe independence to a particular date. The Supreme Court of Canada reflected this uncertainty when it said in Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia that Canada's "sovereignty was acquired in the period between its separate signature of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931..."[1] However, the development of this independence had its roots before 1919, and was not actually completed until well after 1931. As Frank Scott has argued, "Never at any time in [1919-39] was the full international personality of the Dominions, as distinct from Great Britain, established beyond equivocation".[2] Indeed, symbolically-important legal traces of Canada's colonial status were only shed with the passing of the Canada Act[3] by the British Parliament in 1982. That Act not only provided for the first time a process by which Canada's basic constitutional laws could be legally amended without action by the British Parliament, but it also declared that no British law passed thereafter would apply to Canada. There are still two final vestiges of colonialism to be eliminated, those found in ss.55 and 56 of the 1867 Constitution Act which provide for the reservation and disallowance of federal legislation. Of course Canada has been an independent nation for a number of decades, and these shadows of her former status are nothing more than anomalies which illustrate how the legal provisions of the Canadian constitution failed to keep pace with the political developments which propelled Canada to full statehood. At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation, the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these subordinations was eventually removed.
What is remarkable about this whole process is that it was achieved with a minimum of legislative amendments. Much of Canada's independence arose from the development of new political arrangements, many of which have been absorbed into judicial decisions interpreting the constitution - with or without explicit recognition. Canada's passage from being an integral part of the British Empire to being an independent member of the Commonwealth richly illustrates the way in which fundamental constitutional rules have evolved through the interaction of constitutional convention, international law, and municipal statute and case law.
A few thgings, the greennground cover with a wee stream flowing through it. I'm not expecting any 8 wheel tractor to come rumbling over the hill pulling something that is 60 ft wide. However, a man and a dog and some cross-fencing is something that would fit into that particulat landscape. The Queen belongs in a Castle wearing that cape, get real, the pic is meant to impress foreign heads of state rather than the locals insist she look like that when they pick up the bill. I'm thinking the Royals make those sorts of decisions all by themselves without consulting the 'subjects', if the choice is different from what a referendum would provide then the referendum becomes the preferred method of making decisions at the highest levels of Government.
The threads I visit (rather than start) have a common theme, elite and their subjects. If the Royals didn't have their fingers in so many pies I would have less reason to bring them into the picture. She is your head of state, you are more obsessed with her than I am. Alberta also went through 'independence' from the Crown and that was only so the Provinces could join into one country who would then swear an alliance to the same Crown that they were just given independence from. What if the people of Alberta wanted that independence to include military ties firs and foremost. As a 'former member' our independence would be what Scotland would be looking at. The BNA Act of 1867 should have some things that would be common in all 'departures'. It's getting hard to find an on-line but I think it is in the '60's ' that the differences between Provincial Powers and Federal power is listed. One part mentioned is that in all matters that affect the Constitution on matter of Independence has to be resolved via a referendum and that 'part' cannot ever be changed. Ever means we are not past the end of that time even today. Since only Scotland was voting why was the rest of the UK (you know who you are) so vocal speaking about their (private) affairs when Scotland is not consulted on matter that are internal to England
Retirement age for publicly funded entities is 65. The money she collected since then ($35M last years, $37M this year should be used as the official inflate shouldn't it? (5.5%) If the Queen is the Head of the Royals and she is hired to represent that collective why does the public pay the Queen and 1500 of her relatives when the Queen is supposed to support them out of 'her wages'. That is the cost that should be freely given when looked for. That it is hard to find is intentional and that means it must be a lot more than 'the public' would be comfortable with. Why should the Royals expect privacy in that area when they are not working and collecting wages like the rest of the country, all of who can be fired if they mess up enough. Let's go with the yearly gift of $37M (plus expenses) at some point a person would be disqualified from that 'assistance' in that their income is above a certain level. $500M and one investment firm (and mom's private phone number) is dead broke for a Rothschild should the family ever exile one so let increase it to $1B and then you 'donate your time' as without the Kingdom you would have to get a real job. There is also a conflict of interest if any funds come from the Bank of England as she owns 25%. How she came to lose the other 75% is also a story that is not unimportant when looking at this same family that has been involved in the same business, business that involves a lot more people than just themselves, that makes their moves open for discussion by people affected. The West likes to 'off limit' any topics that they look bad in, progress is exterminated by that so that is the part that should be removed and quit doing things that can't be openly talked about. The methods used by the Royals would be the same as it was 300 years ago. War is always the 'final solution for 'them' in the past and it is the first solution these days.
I live in Alberta CND and the closest highway that has an overpass is called the QEII, do I have to translate that for you? Like it or not 'that Royal Family' has us joined at the hip, it isn't like at the start of WWII we had the option of saying. 'One shot eh?, you might want to circle the ships in port and call Germany on the phone and a WTF. The WiFi was supposed to mention the war games in tyhe area and some derelict targets and the results verified before the next arms show in France. Yes they are 'my Royals, I can eiither cover up their mistakes and indescretions or not. 'Not' seems to be the better solution for issues between the Clergy and the Flock being molested. The Royals should not be mollesting the 'public' that funds their lavish lifestyle when you have just admitted they serve no avctual purpose to the running of the country. Perhaps it is time to move them to the entertainment section of society.
In the yearly cash flow do more funds from the public coffers go to her personally or does her taxes at the end of the years more than cover that as her income 'from other sources' is willingly included in the 'taxable income' box on her tax return, right? It's an ancient system that has no role in this modern era, however id she and her 1500 relatives decided to vacation in Saidi and Bahrain and Qatar and bring those Nations up to speed then I'd have not one complaint about the money they are getting, as long as it wasn't increased.
Watch the vid where it states they would have ended up owning 90% of the North Sea Oil and repeat that same sentence without any hysterical laughter. (can't be done)
So what, I can start anyplace 500 years ago until 5 days ago that shows threats are so common it is 'normal' yet the same language used towards you is a reason to start a regional war. The only way to make rule under you a pleasant thing is to intentionally make the time not under your rule a time of terror because the only alternative is war against you, like it or not. That isn't the best definition of sanity.
. . . and complain when her reaction is an invasion of privacy. Take her excat world in her statements to the people of Scotland and more specifically to the 'yes' crowd and do it in the Godfather of NY,NY tone and try that crap that it isn't a threat and one with only a thin veil as the Queen does have to put on a cape and mask to 'cause problems'. Pick up a phone, ask Princess Di.
I agee, those finances are part of the debates the public can have, it is not a private matter, that doesn't mean you have to take part in it though, without taking part then that also takes away your right to add the same comment more than once. Her stake in the Bank of England is also up for topics as that is where the interest payments Canada makes on her debt goes. If the Queen gets 25% then who get the 75% is also something I am allowed to be interested in, with or without your approval. Disapproval being shown by complete silence.
I'm thinking the UK will have the same flag when Muslims are the majority of the voters. I'm pretty sure the 'new constitution' will have all the UN Children's Rights points included. Luckily you are British so the same method used in one case will be used in all similar ones. Fearmongering 101 to follow.
Scotland may seek new independence vote if UK delays devolution, Salmond says
Salmond, in his final speech as party leader, told members that Scotland would eventually secure his dream of independence from London. He also delivered a warning to British Prime Minister David Cameron:
"Let the message be very clear from this hall and from this country ... Prime Minister - delay, prevaricate, block or obstruct the implementation of what Scotland was promised, and Scotland will take matters into our own, democratic, hands."
In a last-ditch attempt to shore up support for the United Kingdom days before the Sept. 18 referendum that threatened to break it apart, Britain's three main political parties promised to give more powers to Scotland.
"If the Westminster gang reneges on the pledges made in the campaign, they will discover that Hell hath no fury like this nation scorned," Salmond told the party conference.
more
Scotland may seek new independence vote if UK delays devolution, Salmond says | Reuters
Salmond, in his final speech as party leader, told members that Scotland would eventually secure his dream of independence from London. He also delivered a warning to British Prime Minister David Cameron:
"Let the message be very clear from this hall and from this country ... Prime Minister - delay, prevaricate, block or obstruct the implementation of what Scotland was promised, and Scotland will take matters into our own, democratic, hands."
In a last-ditch attempt to shore up support for the United Kingdom days before the Sept. 18 referendum that threatened to break it apart, Britain's three main political parties promised to give more powers to Scotland.
"If the Westminster gang reneges on the pledges made in the campaign, they will discover that Hell hath no fury like this nation scorned," Salmond told the party conference.
more
Scotland may seek new independence vote if UK delays devolution, Salmond says | Reuters
Yeah, and the Marshall Islands will win the 2018 World Cup. That was the same Salmond who confidently told us the Scots will vote for independence in September's referendum.
There's no way the Scots will vote to be separated from English money. It was never going to happen in the referendum and it's never going to happen in the future.
Also, I'm in favour of former Home Secretary Jack Straw's calls for a new law to be brought in to make it illegal for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to leave the UK. It's similar to laws in other countries and it should introduced here.
As for the SNP, they're not true Scottish nationalists. They don't actually want independence for Scotland. They're pro-EU and want an independent Scotland in the EU. They just want to swap rule from London for rule from Brussels.
By the way, it was a great result in the football in Glasgow last night.
It gets from bad to worse for poor Alex Salmond. First he fails to achieve an independent Scotland in the referendum back in September, which has just seen him step down as leader of the SNP and as Scotland's First Minister, handing over the reigns of both to fellow fish Nicola Sturgeon.
Then he probably didn't enjoy the news that an English whisky was named the best in Europe.
Then, last night, he proudly sang Flower of Scotland with tens of thousands of other Scotland football fans at Celtic Park in Glasgow as Scotland took on England in Scotland for the first time since November 1999 in the world's oldest, and possibly fiercest, international football fixture. Glasgow is the same city which hosted that very first international football match, which was between Scotland and England, in 1872. In what was a record 112th meeting between the two sides, England ran out 3-1 winners thanks to a goal from Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and two from Wayne Rooney, who was playing his 101st match for England. Rooney is now just five goals away from becoming England's all-time highest goalscorer and will one day also break Peter Shilton's record to become England's most-capped player in history, and England's defeat of the Scots shut up the Scotland fans, who loudly jeered God Save the Queen before the match. This was England's sixth successive victory, their best run of results since 2005.
England's win last night means that, in the 112 meetings between the sides, England have won 47, Scotland have won 41, and there have been 24 draws.
Just to run the salt into Salmond's wounds:
Scotland 1-3 England
................................Oxlade-Chamberlain 32
Robertson 83..........Rooney 47, 85
If you lost a referendum clap your hands! More pain for Alex Salmond as he watches Scotland lose 3-1 to England... amid usual tensions among the rival fans
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond (left singing Flower of Scotland) quit as SNP leader after he lost the Scottish Referendum in September and spent the end of his final full day in office with 50,000 other fans at Parkhead last night and watched Roy Hodgson's side win 3-1. Scotland were playing the old enemy on home turf for the first time in 15 years and Mr Salmond and the rest of the Tartan Army had hoped for a victory. But two goals from captain Wayne Rooney and a header by Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was enough to beat Gordon Strachan's side. 5,000 England fans were at Celtic Park to watch the friendly - the oldest fixture in international football. Police in Glasgow, the city where that first-ever international football match took place in 1872, took no chances with officers on every corner - and stewards were forced to grab a Scottish pitch invader (bottom right) mid-match. Fans from both sides (top right) were in high spirits and but there were no reports of major fighting before or after the game
Support: This topless England fan appears to be leading a chant or song from the stands during the match - the oldest fixture in international football
Some Scotland supporters show off their patriotism before the match and were clearly hoping for a win
An England fan arriving at Glasgow's train station before seeing his team put the Scots to the sword
The teams line up inside Celtic Park for the national anthems before the match
The Scotland fans loudly booed God Save the Queen, but it was not long before the England team shut them up
Read more: Alex Salmond watches Scotland lose 3-1 to England at Celtic Park in Glasgow | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
How long do you think it'll be before Salmond asks for a rematch?
Last edited: