Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

1000 years is just a generalization. The family is irrelevant compared to the institution that is the Kingdom of England.

Before you bite my head off, yes, England. It was the primary initiator of the United Kingdom and thus is what I'm counting.

I am sorry, but I will still bite your head off. There is no escape from the chip on a Scotsman's shoulder. There was no single primary initiator of the uk, rather it was the english and scottish parliaments and the english\scottish monarchy. Scotland and England (if the Welsh and Northern Irish were still in a rather Cornish position) would be the two equal successor states. The reason why our national parliament ended up down south was because london was bigger, richer, the english were more powerful and our queen was born and raised in england.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Scotland was the one in a tight spot. England could have not unified and been just fine. If you need more proof, London is still the political center of the UK and was originally the absolute political center of it.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Scotland was the one in a tight spot. England could have not unified and been just fine. If you need more proof, London is still the political center of the UK and was originally the absolute political center of it.

Exactly. Most of the common people in Scotland were against the against the idea of union, seeing how the two countries were at loggerheads for most of the medieval period. But many of the members of the Scottish Parliament had lost fortunes in the Darien Scheme, and so were easily bribed into supporting the union. As an indication to how lopsided the union was, the original flag design had St. George's Cross with St. Andrew's cross in the top-left corner. But obviously the Scottish MPs weren't going to take such an obvious insult to their country, no matter how much money was involved, and so the flag's design was eventually changed to the union flag. As an additional sign of the lopsidedness of the union, the English MPs significantly outnumbered the Scottish ones in both houses. As far as I know the Scottish MPs didn't argue about that.

[Owlbread]

Scotland was the one in a tight spot. England could have not unified and been just fine. If you need more proof, London is still the political center of the UK and was originally the absolute political center of it.

The Union was (and is) one sided, yes, but we were still both initiators (initiator being the key word, we weren't equal after we joined certainly) of equal standing and created a country that obliterated the independence of both our nations. It also required consent from both parliaments, ours needed a fair bit of bribery because we were vehemently opposed to union in 1705. This obliteration can be seen even today; England doesn't even have a parliament. It isn't really England anymore, just "Britain".

Scotland also had other less attractive choices, tight though the situation was. The majority of our MPs apparently supported such unattractive proposals initially.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This obliteration can be seen even today; England doesn't even have a parliament. It isn't really England anymore, just "Britain".

That's only because you're seeing it from the perspective of the modern day, with the devolved parliaments of the rest of the UK. England does have a parliament: THE Parliament of the United Kingdom. It represented England's dominance of the UK, but eventually times changed and such displays of power faded in impressiveness, thus the establishment of the devolved parliaments.

[Owlbread]

This obliteration can be seen even today; England doesn't even have a parliament. It isn't really England anymore, just "Britain".

That's only because you're seeing it from the perspective of the modern day, with the devolved parliaments of the rest of the UK. England does have a parliament: THE Parliament of the United Kingdom. It represented England's dominance of the UK, but eventually times changed and such displays of power faded in impressiveness, thus the establishment of the devolved parliaments.

England's dominance within the Union does not equate with them being the primary initiator, nor does it suggest that we wouldn't both be equal successor (accessor?) states. If our parliament had not given consent, no UK. Don't get me wrong - I know England did best out of the Union and all that, I'm just saying that the monarchy of Great Britain splits in at least two paths, one older than the other. Remember, at the time of the union the royal family was scottish.

Yeah I know, but if you lived here and felt the vibes you'dget the impression that despite appearances the parliament of the UK isn't really English anymore. Not in the modern sense, like you said. It's something else altogether that doesn't really represent the nation of england in the modern sense, which is what I am going by. Indeed, until recently it represented the welsh in lawmaking too.

[Descan]

Getting back on topic, the UK's same-sex marriage bill has passed the House of Commons 400-175. Now it has to pass the House of Lords and.....the House of Commons again.....for some reason.

The Church of England is very, very angry about all of this.

We have had a bill passed in France like this as well. although I am not sure if the law has passed already.

Pointless drama, if you ask me. We have better things to do in times of economical recession.

If you wait until the economy is good in order to focus on social issues, you have a loooooong wait ahead of you. On the order of never, in fact.

[USEC_OFFICER]

nor does it suggest that we wouldn't both be equal successor (accessor?) states.

I'm pretty sure that nobody is arguing against this point. Or at the very least, I'm not. But we're not talking about the English-Scottish relationship now, we're talking about it back in the 1700s, when the two countries merged. As you've mentioned before, the UK parliament isn't English any more, but back in the 1700s it certainly was, given the dominance of the English MPs compared to the Scottish ones.

England's dominance within the Union does not equate with them being the primary initiator

I suppose not, but I still feel that England was the primary initiator of the union. Only by England's actions (ie. bribery) did the Scottish parliament accept the union. Scotland by itself would have never accepted the union, or at least union in 1707.

Remember, at the time of the union the royal family was scottish.

Only in hereditary only, I'm afraid. After King James the VI/I, the royal family quickly became estranged with Scotland (mostly over religious issues, as far as I can tell)  and enamoured of England. Charles I was born in the Scotland, but his coronation in 1633 was his first visit to the country. The monarchs after him were pretty much all born in London, which I doubt helped with their identities as Scotsmen. Of course this is all tangential to the discussion about the Scottish/English Union, but I love blabbing about history, so eh.

Anyways I probably should get some sleep, so I'll just quit right here. We're pretty much just talking across each other at this point anyway, so I doubt that further discussion would be very profitable. Good night everyone.

[Nadaka]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/miami-judge-allows-3-names-birth-certificate-190350985--abc-news-topstories.html

Interesting, A gay man and two lesbians conceived a child. They originally agreed that he would have a role in his childs life, but soon asked him to sign papers designating him as a sperm donor, wich would mean he has no rights to the child. After a few years of legal action, they came to an agreement, and the judge allowed all 3 to be legally named as the childs parents.

[Sirus]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/miami-judge-allows-3-names-birth-certificate-190350985--abc-news-topstories.html

Interesting, A gay man and two lesbians conceived a child. They originally agreed that he would have a role in his childs life, but soon asked him to sign papers designating him as a sperm donor, wich would mean he has no rights to the child. After a few years of legal action, they came to an agreement, and the judge allowed all 3 to be legally named as the childs parents.

Oh good lord, I can't wait to see the bigoted reactions this is gonna get

[Nadaka]

Believe me, the comments section there is ridiculously hostile.

[Sirus]

Well, it IS Yahoo!, so...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I swear, Yahoo has a higher concentration of Christian apocalypse seekers than anyplace else on the internet, even sites specifically for them.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Descan]

I want to take that, clean it up a little, take it to a little out-of-the-way poetry club, and recite it to the beat of a drum.