Taking Back a Stolen Homeland - Scotland

[Blackleaf]

I'm not the one who claimed falsely that the land making up what is now the U.S. belonged to the British crown.

Most of it didn't. So who's in denial of reality?

Where did I say that all of what is now the USA belonged to the British monarch? If I said it I'm sure you could point it out for me.

I said that huge swathes of North America were claimed for the British monarch BEFORE Canada and USA were even born.

 

[hunboldt]

Where did I say that all of what is now the USA belonged to the British monarch? If I said it I'm sure you could point it out for me.

Meanwhile, back in Scotland...:lol:

 

[captain morgan]

I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II OWNS THE COUNTRY OF CANADA AND 15 OTHER NATIONS.

I'm getting sick of your deliberate refusal to see the facts here.... But seeing how you demand to stick to ancient history on ownership issues. I seem to recall that England (and much of the UK) were 'owned' by the Romans low those many years ago.

In fact, one might argue that they never signed-off on those lands so, is it fair to say that England is truly 'owned' by the Italian peoples?... I have Italian blood so I guess that makes me a fractional owner of England and in a defacto sense, also gives me the right (at least more than you) to deem that Canada now belongs to Canadians.

Ain't history great?

Canadian land is the QUEEN'S.

Not anymore

so much for the Great Scottish land debate....

The heart of the Scottish issue is identical to that of Canada (in principle)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Where did I say that all of what is now the USA belonged to the British monarch? If I said it I'm sure you could point it out for me.

Raht 'char, buddy:

The lands making up what are now Canada and the USA belonged to the British monarch BEFORE the nation states of Canada and the USA even came into existence.

Post #50.

Kinda funny watching y'all try to squirm out of it though.

 

[Blackleaf]

I seem to recall that England (and much of the UK) were 'owned' by the Romans low those many years ago.

Not anymore. This is 2013, mate.

In fact, one might argue that they never signed-off on those lands so, is it fair to say that England is truly 'owned' by the Italian peoples?...

No. As I've already mentioned - which you are obviously overlooking once again - is that the QUEEN owns England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Raht 'char, buddy:



Post #50.

Kinda funny watching y'all try to squirm out of it though.

I think it's kinda funny that you thought I was referring to the USA in post No50, when I was actually referring to Canada.

 

[Cliffy]

Perhaps someone can answer me this; if most of the land in British Columbia was never ceded and almost no treaties were ever signed, who gave the Crown the right to issue fee simple title to any of the land or issue permits to log or mine any of the land?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think it's kinda funny that you thought I was referring to the USA in post No50, when I was actually referring to Canada.

Ah, I see. When you say "The lands making up what are now Canada and the USA belonged to the British monarch BEFORE the nation states of Canada and the USA even came into existence" you're speaking only of Canada.

 

[Cliffy]

Tecumsehsbones, as you are a lawyer, I would be most interested in hearing your take on the above question.

 

[Jonny_C]

I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II OWNS THE COUNTRY OF CANADA AND 15 OTHER NATIONS.

Canadian land is the QUEEN'S.

This is like stooping down to play with somebody in a sandbox, but I'll say that your insistence on a technicality has no applicability in real life. If the Queen wanted actual possession of a single acre of Canadian territory, the Canadian government might grant it to her as a courtesy, IF it were not private property or part of a native reserve.

Of course she has the sense not to insist or even ask, lest such a request would lead to the severing of ties with the monarchy by unilateral Canadian democratic desision.

That's how far her "land rights" would extend.

You have a wildly inflated sense of what the monarchy means to Canada. It's a traditional symbolism that Canadians are generally comfortable with and generally like (because it sets us apart from the USA), nothing more. Any attempt by the monarchy to insist on some rights would be simply be met with a legislated end to ties.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Tecumsehsbones, as you are a lawyer, I would be most interested in hearing your take on the above question.

Well, in the case of Britain and Canada it's a question of international law. Most people don't understand international law. So I'll give you the key. . . there ain't much.

Suffice to say that no Canadian court would give credence to any claim the British Crown made on Canadian land, or land in any of the other Commonwealth countries. Further, I strongly doubt any British court would side with Queenie if she made a claim to private land in Britain on the basis of the Domesday Book.

Law develops over time. There are still two U.S. states that have laws on the books that say if there are three or more or five or more Indians on your land, you are entitled to consider them a war party and shoot them.

I wouldn't want to be the lawyer trying to present that as a viable murder defence.

Britain can claim the moon and the stars if it likes (it probably has). A law that has no effect is not worth thinking about.

 

[Cliffy]

Well, in the case of Britain and Canada it's a question of international law. Most people don't understand international law. So I'll give you the key. . . there ain't much.

Suffice to say that no Canadian court would give credence to any claim the British Crown made on Canadian land, or land in any of the other Commonwealth countries. Further, I strongly doubt any British court would side with Queenie if she made a claim to private land in Britain on the basis of the Domesday Book.

Law develops over time. There are still two U.S. states that have laws on the books that say if there are three or more or five or more Indians on your land, you are entitled to consider them a war party and shoot them.

I wouldn't want to be the lawyer trying to present that as a viable murder defence.

Britain can claim the moon and the stars if it likes (it probably has). A law that has no effect is not worth thinking about.

I'm not talking about the queen. Crown land in Canada is supposed to be owned by Canadians (which might be true if we actually lived in a democracy, but that's another discussion). If no land is ceded to the Crown, and there were no wars and no treaties signed, where does the Crown get the right to issue fee simple title to lands or issue permits to log or mine on unceded land?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm not talking about the queen. Crown land in Canada is supposed to be owned by Canadians (which might be true if we actually lived in a democracy, but that's another discussion). If no land is ceded to the Crown, and there were no wars and no treaties signed, where does the Crown get the right to issue fee simple title to lands or issue permits to log or mine on unceded land?

In Canda, "the Crown" effectively means the Canadian government.

Cliffy, I'm not going to argue, or even discuss, the whole native lands issue with you. It's a waste of time. It happened, and I'm as aware as you are of the disaster it was. But there is nothing anyone can do about it. Better to focus our energies on today and tomorrow.

 

[Cliffy]

In Canda, "the Crown" effectively means the Canadian government.

Cliffy, I'm not going to argue, or even discuss, the whole native lands issue with you. It's a waste of time. It happened, and I'm as aware as you are of the disaster it was. But there is nothing anyone can do about it. Better to focus our energies on today and tomorrow.

I am an associated member of the Sinixt Nation. We are fighting the BC government on this issue, today and tomorrow. The Sinixt are blocking a logging road right now. So that is where I am focusing my energies. I think BC is a unique case as it is the only land that is unceded and the Sinixt are a unique case as they were declared extinct in 1956 for purely political reasons (negotiations for the Columbia River Treaty with the US). They are obviously not extinct and the government acknowledges they are not extinct except where the Canadian Indian Act is concerned.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I am an associated member of the Sinixt Nation. We are fighting the BC government on this issue, today and tomorrow. The Sinixt are blocking a logging road right now. So that is where I am focusing my energies. I think BC is a unique case as it is the only land that is unceded and the Sinixt are a unique case as they were declared extinct in 1956 for purely political reasons (negotiations for the Columbia River Treaty with the US). They are obviously not extinct and the government acknowledges they are not extinct except where the Canadian Indian Act is concerned.

I wish you all the luck in the world. Seriously. Nonetheless, even your post shows that the success of this case will turn on the law as it is now, and on recent history and a modern recognition of native rights, not on some abstruse philosophising about the nature of land possession. The law is, necessarily, an approximation, and no working lawyer gives a damn about any Unified Theory of right and wrong. My profession played that game for several centuries, and gave it up as a bad and useless business.

 

[taxslave]

We don't want the "lands back". They belong to the QUEEN.



How has it changed? The land of Canada belongs to the Queen.



No, they weren't. The lands making up what are now Canada and the USA belonged to the British monarch BEFORE the nation states of Canada and the USA even came into existence. Whole swathes of North America were claimed by Britain for the monarch BEFORE Canada and the USA even existed. Canada and the USA wouldn't exist today were it not for the British Empire.

Didn't you study history at school?

Just exactly who did queen purchase said lands from in the first place? Got a bill of sale?

 

[Blackleaf]

What a bunch of horse sh-t! While the queen herself might own some land in Canada, to say she owns Canada is just silly. A sizable amount of land in Canada is owned by corporations and private persons who do not report to the queen. What we call "crown land", has nothing to do with the queen or any of that group of incestuous hemopheliacs you call the royal family.

You obviously haven't read the articles which show otherwise.

Just exactly who did queen purchase said lands from in the first place? Got a bill of sale?

She didn't purchase her lands. She inherited them.

So you deny that much of the land that makes up what is now the U.S. belonged to France, Spain, and Russia?

Nope.

In Canda, "the Crown" effectively means the Canadian government.

No, it doesn't. It means the Crown.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No, it doesn't. It means the Crown.

I did say "In Canada." You are only qualified to say what things mean in Little England.

 

[Blackleaf]

I did say "In Canada." You are only qualified to say what things mean in Little England.

What rubbish. They same rules on Crown land apply in ALL of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms, Canada included. I don't see why Canada should be treated any differently.

 

[taxslave]

She didn't purchase her lands. She inherited them.






Funny I do not recall seeing her name on any wills written by my ancestors.

 

[Blackleaf]

She didn't purchase her lands. She inherited them.






Funny I do not recall seeing her name on any wills written by my ancestors.

Come on, you don't want me to embarass you. I'm about to.