You can’t buy one square foot of land in Scotland and become a Scottish lord
talesoftimesforgotten.com
talesoftimesforgotten.com
I'm sure there are plenty of examples of unrecognized people living their lives in a "sovereign" way who could easily be slaughtered by their neighbors but the neighbors are just like fuck it, not worth losing a few of our guys to slaughter the unrecognized others. A slightly worse example is the Chechens, who gained a sort of unrecognized independence for several years until they became a bit more of a thorn to Russia who didn't really value their soldiers life much to begin with to worry much about the risks of putting them back down.
https://i.imgur.com/ZFPgRFl.png
Nothing there lol, otherwise I'd be in jail right now. Federal search warrant initiated by DHS. Obvi they faked the dog alert and visual 'evidence' because they were pissed I mentioned the constitution.
Example: Ukraine. They are being somewhat successful at defending themselves, and stomping the shlit out of Russia, at least so far.
Sure, maybe those have been battles, but who will win the war? Maybe Russia, but maybe Ukraine. I don't know, I can't see the future.
But so far, Ukraine has been stomping the heck out of Russia. We don't know if the territory will stay with Russia or not, so that map is of little consequence at this time.
I do remember them being taken to court and the UK court saying it had no jurisdiction over Sealand.
What I found now:
Shortly after this declaration, Sealand faced its first test of sovereignty when the Royal Navy approached the structure to evict the Sealanders. Convinced of his sovereignty, Bates fired a series of defensive warning shots at the ships to protect the structure and was subsequently summoned into British court on criminal charges for his actions.1 l Arguing that the British court lacked jurisdiction over Sealand, Bates was successful in having the charges against him dropped." This victory reinforced Sealand's claim of sovereignty.
> Parliament has no doubt the power to make it an offense for a British subject to have a firearm with intent to endanger life in Istanbul or Buenos Aires, or where have you, but I do not think it has done so. The Firearm Act of 1937 seems to me to be clearly an Act intended to operate only within the ordinary territorial limits and also no doubt on British ships. Breaches of its provisions, even by British subjects, outside those limits are not in my judgment intended to be cogniable by the British Court.
The court was not specifically saying that it had no jurisdiction over Sealand, more that British laws normally only apply within 3nm of the coast (at the time, this is now extended to 12nm) and on British ships unless otherwise specifically stated. As Sealand was more than 3nm of the coast, and there was no specific provision that the law under which the guy was charged should apply outside the normal territorial limits of the UK.
It's part of the normal checks and balances system in the UK that the judiciary hold the legislature accountable for what they actually write, not what they intend.
It was a loophole which has since been closed by extending the territorial waters of the UK, rather than a recognition of Sealand as a sovereign nation.
Maybe.
The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in the Sahara desert.
So it was not counted as British land, nor a British ship. That's interesting.
The extension of territorial waters explicitly cannot do so to aquire more land. E.g. if Sealand had been a natural Island then unambigiously this 3->12nm extension would NOT make it British.
So the ruling said that it's not a ship. And it's not British land. If it's "land" at all then it did not become British land by the territorial extension.
But I also agree: It did not recognize sovereignity. It narrowed down the options in the future for courts (or parliament) justifying why it's not sovereign, though.
Though of course parliament could decree that the moon is green and sealand is British, and for the latter no other country would care. And that's really all that matters.
I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. For example as a British citizen you can be prosecuted in the UK for abusing a minor in any country - the jurisdiction is over you as a British citizen. However this isn't the case with isn't a feature of the The Firearm Act of 1937 which I guess only applies on British land and ships.
I take that to mean that the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law.
Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. I'm just pointing out that because parliament cannot be bound this means that anything and everything can become law.
So pointing out that it could become law by act of parliament to apply to British subjects anywhere doesn't mean much, because anything could be, British subjects involved or not.
This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution.
For the question of "is it British land" this is just "well, what is a country?", and comes down to "is it recognized as such by other nations?".
But nobody cares, so this will probably never be settled, and more likely end is that it falls apart by natural forces before it's settled in law. It's just not worth bothering parliament with this.
Unless the "sovereign" state of Sealand decides to lease out some of its land to the Russian military. Very quickly this will be settled, in the UK's favour. Settled legally? Well… by whose law?
> the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law.
Right. As written it seems that the law did not apply.
Actually the full judgement[0] is a bit clearer that that's exactly what how it's intended, but not in a jingoistic nationalist way.
One argument in this case was that there ARE crimes which are justiciable in the UK which are not committed within the UK or its territorial water, (treason, murder, bigamy, and offences committed on British-flagged ships on the High Seas, I think child molestation was mentioned by OP, but not in this court case—I'm not sure about this one, although it wouldn't surprise me if it's on the list).
So it is both possible and precedented for parliament to pass laws which, when broken, would fall under the jurisdiction of British courts even if the offence itself did not take place in the UK. But this isn't one of those cases.
> This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution.
The UK also has a constitution, it's just not consolidated in a single document. Parliament is bound by a variety of restrictions on what they can and can't do in terms of passing laws. However, it is, of course, possible to change these restrictions, or pass the law despite them, similarly to how it is possible to amend the US constitution, and pass a law which is later found to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
I believe similarly to the US, any law can be passed, and if its constitutionality is challenged, then there is a Supreme Court who will pass a judgement, and so apart from the simplicity of having a consolidated and codified US constitution, there's no major difference between the two countries in that respect—any law found to be unconstitutional will be considered void.
Agree completely though that basically no-one cares enough to try to sort this out.
I'm not even sure what mechanism there would be for doing so? To actively police Sealand until a crime occurs, so that the perpetrator could be arrested and brought for trial to see if the judge would consider Sealand under their jurisdiction this time?
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070302111533/http://www.seanha...
Most would probably not care about the former either.
Italy went further and declared formal war on the new country.
It is the only war Italy has won.
I mean honestly if you could be a lord with 1 square foot, there would be a lot of lords in Scotland due to the ownership nature of buying a house (very little of this "leasehold" thing that's prevalent in England). My parents would be a lord and lady, so would their parents...
I've not encountered these ads though, I guess it would be pretty dumb to geo-target it to people living in Scotland.
Edit, on the other hand, if you buy a house and let it out, I guess you can be a land lord, even if you still can't call yourself lord.
And the correct term is laird btw.
The OP quite clearly notes that this is false:
> In the United Kingdom, “lord” and “lady” are peerage titles, meaning a person can only hold the legal recognition, privileges, and protections associated with those titles if they rightfully inherit them, if they marry into a noble family, or if the queen grants them a peerage.
> Companies that sell souvenir plots with the claim of granting titles often rely on a conflation of the titles “lord” and “lady” with “laird,” which is not a peerage title, but rather solely a courtesy title akin to the English phrase “lord of the manor.” In Scotland, this title is traditionally applied to a member of the landed gentry who owns a large estate that has a long history and who generally has servants and tenants. Because “laird” is merely a courtesy title, it has no legal significance
The title of nobility is "lord". "Laird" is not a title at all, but a conventional designation for a somewhat related concept.
One of the weird side effects of being from a melting pot country only a few hundred years old is a yearning for connection to things that feel permanent and historical. "Owning" some land in Scotland and "having" a title may be appealing to an American who otherwise feels cut off from their Scottish ancestry or other longer-term cultural practices.
Personally, I've always found it a bit silly -- the folks I most admire in my ancestry are the ones who looked around and said "Yeah current events are shaping up to be part of some nation's rich history, time to get the hell out of dodge." Rich history is largely made of poor people being shoved into the meat grinder of 'glorious' national struggles.
My point is that Native Americans do have just as rich and interesting a history as European countries. It was just largely deliberately erased by European settlers.
> So then, the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas also would rank as "some of the most deadly acts of mass killing in human history."
I agree. That kind of strengthens my point - I wouldn’t want to associate my heritage with that sort of thing (unless you’re in Mongolia where GK is still considered a god-like figure by many)
Where I grew up, Lord NotGoingToDoxxHim, Clan Chief of the MacDonalds, was the local TV repairman and satellite dish installer who drove an admittedly rather nice Volvo and had a house with a garden nearly as big as ours.
I've many non-binary friends that especially pine that Mx isn't greatly accepted by many and most of the non-gendered titles (including Doctor) are hard to acquire. I keep joking that if I were Governor of Kentucky, I'd make a simple form for any non-binary person to acquire the Colonel title if they wished.
(In Kentucky the Colonel title, the same one used by, for instance, the well known Colonel Sanders, is a title gifted to anyone for general service to the Commonwealth. It's origins are military, but it's been much more a philanthropic thing for much of the past couple centuries, including in the case of Colonel Sanders who was awarded it for his role as a businessman in the Commonwealth. It's a fascinating title.)
And while you're there, take the Water to Whiskey tour: https://whiskystories.com/2017/02/18/laphroaig-water-to-whis...
went a few years ago
Still a nice day out with a picnic by the water source, as long as weather cooperates.
Ah, so I see. It has been a while.
The stop to dig peat was fun, but it's still a really good tour without that.
(Putting people in oubliettes is illegal under UK law anyway.)
(Would it be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette? Can the queen be detained at her own pleasure, at least for anything other than the detonation of a nuclear device in her personal capacity?)
No, it would not be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette. The British Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and can make any law it wishes.
The devolved legislatures are limited by the Act(s) establishing them. Such a law passed by the Scottish Parliament would probably be challenged under S29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 which prohibits breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In this case, such a law in Scotland could potentially breach Article 3 of the Convention which prohibits inhuman or degrading punishment. The British Parliament can simply choose to ignore it, but the Scottish Parliament can't (unless the British Parliament chose to give it such powers).
> Can the queen be detained at her own pleasure, at least for anything other than the detonation of a nuclear device in her personal capacity?
No, she cannot be prosecuted for anything while she is the monarch. She would need to abdicate or otherwise be legally removed (e.g. an Act of Parliament abolishing the Crown) from her position.
Even if she were able to be prosecuted, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 is not currently in force, and even if the Act were in force, Her Majesty would be exempt under S14(4):
"Nothing in this section affects Her Majesty in her private capacity; and this subsection shall be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (meaning of Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act."
Well, if Westminster choose to ignore the convention, I don't see why Holyrood would not choose to ignore Westminster?
This whole politics thing only works if we DON'T ignore stuff we all signed.
The ECHR has no such powers over signatories.
This idea of 'power' is a complicated one. What 'power' does England have over Scotland other than the power that Scotland has agreed to accept (see Northern Ireland for what happens when one of the devolved nations is conflicted over whether to accept that power)? What 'power' does the ECHR have over any of its signatories other than that which they've chosen to accept?
There's a well-written and detailed exploration of the negative consequences of withdrawing from the ECHR here, and what is power except the ability to impose negative consequences for not following instructions?
https://verfassungsblog.de/uks-potential-withdrawal-european...
Yes, I think power is exactly this.
> What 'power' does England have over Scotland other than the power that Scotland has agreed to accept
A monopoly on violence to enforce its territorial integrity as the United Kingdom. Withdrawing from international treaties is generally accepted to be within a state's general powers. Seceding from an existing state? Generally recognised by the current international order as unlawful and solely a matter for the state to resolve internally.
Would there be international condemnation if Scotland seceded and England tried to take it back by force? Yes, but doing so would embolden existing secessionist movements in, e.g. Spain or the United States, so those states (plus the ones who promote non-interference in domestic affairs) aren't going to intervene in any meaningful sense.
I think power must go beyond consent and incorporate the expectations and realities of the nature of sovereign state power on the international stage. The UK has the right to insure its territorial integrity, while the principle of self-determination is limited within that framework.
Sure, but this is the same argument that comes around whenever previously signed treaties become 'inconvenient'.
Parliament can, of course, choose to ignore EHCR/Geneva/pick-any-other-ratified-treaty. But there are both predictable and unpredictable consequences for doing so, so in practice it's prudent for parliament to not just wield their unlimited power to just start murdering whoever they fancy.
For example, Iraq, the Chagos Islands, the Brexit trade deal concerning customs checks in Northern Ireland, etc.
I suppose it's all really just one big political matter: do they want to chance it? Probably not, but they could, legally. We just haven't had the government who's willing to do that yet, but given the current government's willingness to flout international law, prudence seems like it might have vanished some time ago...
Perfectly reasonable, until the executive decides to pack the court, and then renege on / "creatively reinterpret" their shiny new "bill of rights" (or even just simply amend it).
You say "merely", but that's the whole dog and pony show. This isn't some abstract, ideological exercise, the current government wants to pass laws that would currently not fly in the ECHR court. If they didn't, there would be zero practical need to change the current state. Ask yourself which bits of the ECHR you think are worth doing without?
Remember, the whole point of the ECHR is to prevent the oppression of a people by their government. Having the court be drawn from a range of different nations and not having any single government exclusively in control is a feature, not a bug.
In-video "sponsored content" on YouTube is probably only made in only one version and thus not geo-targetted, right? I've seen this in several videos on history and adjacent subjects (for instance in some by Max Miller, whose "Tasting History" channel on old recipes seems rather popular here). So if you want to see it, that's where to look.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-02/even-if-y...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Prinz_von_A...
(Not that this would be a very cost-effective way to obtain extra whisky!)
When I visited them in 2015 they were happy to let you try all of their regular expressions. That may have changed since then, but I suspect it might still depend a bit on the bar keep working that day and your conduct from what I read in forums.
And Islay is well worth a visit, even if you can't get hammered for free anymore. ;)
It may not have the beautiful beaches, high cliffs and insane shattered landscape of the Outer Hebrides (not necessarily all on the same island, though), but the people are lovely and you can have easy hikes and have fun running into the same people all over again.
And don't forget to greet the other car drivers.
EDIT: lol
> NFT Star
> While we are 30 years old, we use the newest and most innovative technology. All Sparklingly Star Register Stars are backed and verified on the Ethereum Blockchain through an NFT (Non Fungible Token). NOTE: The NFTs will be minted in July 2022 and customers will receive instructions on how to receive theirs then.
I thought so, until I read Death's End.
I've been on the internet a lot, sometimes even without ads blocked, and never encountered this. Do they geotarget Americans?
The website is long gone and although you got a deed I'm not certain you really owned anything. If you did you'd owe taxes and Detroit is pretty aggressive about collections.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/evicted-101-year-o...
Source: Friend of mine bought cheap property in Detroit. Threatened with a lawsuit, so he gave it up to the city.
They sued a Member of the Scottish Parliament for writing a blog which explains the tax haven structure they use. http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4152
Don't believe any similar claims they make like "reintroducing lynx" they are doing no such thing.
It's just a way to get people to give them money in return for nothing.
If not the the customer, then do they really own it?
Life peerages are still routinely created (excessively so, in fact) and, arguably, giving generously to your favourite political party might improve your chances of getting one.
While I'm still convinced of the benefits of a strictly limited, appointed rather than elected upper house to act as a brake on unfettered populism, the selection process is in desperate need of overhaul and should be taken out of actively partisan hands at least. I'd also make all lords crossbenchers, a non-partisan upper house would perform its role more effectively in my opinion.
How am I to know who’s generating quality content with quality sponsorships vs. those that aren’t? Particularly if I’m trying to learn about a topic I don’t have experience in.
"If it's on the internet, it's true" is a real thing.
The following isnt just for youtubers, its for all information.
As individuals, we can ensure they present evidence. If we're going to attempt something drastic off this evidence, ie, claim Scottish Lordship, we should validate the evidence ourselves or ask a credentialed validator. Ie, a Scottish lawyer.
* Did they present evidence? * If yes, do they posses credentials that make them a meaningful evaluator? * If yes, do other meaningful evaluators agree?
It's not dissimilar to the scientific method.
Or most of the time: Calling out Flat-Earthers and other tinfoil-hattery is most of what SciManDan does.
If someone you're trusting to instruct you on something suddenly starts pushing Doc's Miracle Remedy & Floor Wax, you might reasonably conclude they'll say anything for money and adjust your priors.
>If someone you're trusting to instruct you on something suddenly starts pushing Doc's Miracle Remedy & Floor Wax, you might reasonably conclude they'll say anything for money and adjust your priors.
Should read:
>If someone you're trusting to instruct you on something suddenly starts pushing Doc's Miracle Remedy & Floor Wax, you might reasonably conclude they have expanded their expertise to other areas, and you should trust the remedy and floor wax, and that anyone who disagrees with the someone you trust just does it because they are a) dumb, b) evil, c) part of a grand conspiracy to make you look stupid.
I know they don't know what they are talking about. How many youtubers actually understand WHY all those VPN companies are hawking horseshit with their ads about "protecting you from hackers" etc. They see other youtubers, often much more "knowledgeable" in the area of information in question hawking such things, so they feel comfortable taking money for those ads. If we want this to stop then 1) we need to find another way for these youtubers WHO ARE GENUINELY MAKING HIGH QUALITY AND IMPORTANT CONTENT to pay their bills and 2) help them understand that we don't want to be sold garbage, and how to understand the ad copy they've been told to spout is garbage.
It feels like inevitable disappointment with every channel eventually devolving into garbage. Granted they don't all do that, but it is so frequent I feel like I'm just dreading my favorite channels going bad ... often.
One Youtuber I used to follow was sponsored by some scam. Dude actually responded to the issues raised in the comments. But the response was "yeah these folks are kinda dirty but you could get free money out of it". 1. No you won't thus the scam... 2 ... -unsubscribe-
YouTube feels like a perpetual race to the bottom.
I'm certainly not excusing low level scams, charlatanism, or snake oil, but even before YouTube there were TV commercials and radio hosts peddling things like "Name a Star."
There comes a point where I can't really feel sorry for anyone who buys this stuff thinking it's actually real and not just a cute gag.
We have laws against it. Prosecute people. The biggest problem AFAICT is other countries don't give a damn about fraud (as long as it isn't against their own), and, e.g., American phone companies continue to permit falsifying caller ID.
The idea of capitalism is that a better product (i.e., one offering more utility/$) should win out. There are some … requirements for that, though, like a good flow of information, and that's hard in a marketplace where actors lie, fraudsters, but increasingly "legitimate" companies as well. We all see the stories from the FTC et al. where the enforcement penalty is paltry. I.e., the cost of doing business.
Better consumer protections. But nobody cares about things like that, presently, as we're too busy having conniptions over far stupider things.
You start with early adopters. They get big on novelty or being genuinely entertaining. Eventually, they learn how to make money off of it. Once people realize money can be made off of it, more people will try to do so. Then actual production units get involved. It's no long suitable to have a camera and a mic. You need condensers, filters, lighting, schedules, etc. And now, it's not just you, it's you, your neighbor, your friends, Sony, the platform itself, your goddamn fucking cat has a channel somehow. And then there's just not enough money to just grab. You have to hustle for it. And then you find yourself shilling crypto or timeshares or some bullshit.
I don't think there are many companies looking to sponsor youtubers that AREN'T at least sketchy.
I am an ordained minister and a "Brother". I own almost 70 acres of rural land so I'm not interested in buying another square foot.
Also glad to know from the article I can just go around now calling myself a "Laird"
dash s.
Additionally, it destroys the irony for the readers who understand the /s.
(Perhaps '/' is called a 'dash' or something similar in other languages, but it's an 'oblique' or 'slash' usually in English. To lend weight to that theory, I believe 'oblique' comes from it being the oblique/italic form of a dash - so other Romance languages may well give it the same or very similar name to that for '–'.)
You can just buy it here: https://sealandgov.org/shop/become-a-lord-lady-baron-or-baro...
Only fancy feast for the young highness.
And this is kinda the point, people don't really care if it's real or not. Nobody is about to go to put "Lord Alexander" on their drivers license or airline boarding passes—and if they do, good for them.
Anecdotally, I have a friend who is a hereditary heir to a baronet title, and that itself sounds way cooler.
That appears to be just as much bunk/urban legend as the topic of TFA...
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-us/law-historic-govern...
Nothing about drawn swords or sheep.
And another article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City
“the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand—although today the title of "freeman" confers no special privileges”
“While sheep have occasionally been driven over London Bridge by Freemen on special occasions, these privileges are now effectively symbolic.”
Effectively, what once was is no longer, but people still want to believe it to be.
TLDR; don’t go carrying a drawn sword or herding sheep across the bridge (unless it’s during one of the ceremonial and permitted sheep drives).
The quote about driving sheep being largely symbolic, I read that as saying "technically you can do this but hardly anyone exercises the right because there's no economic benefit". No shepherds would want or need to bring sheep to market in that particular way. No flocks of sheep are even likely nearby. So in that sense the benefits are all relatively silly and unusual, not necessarily practical.
> In the United Kingdom, “lord” and “lady” are peerage titles, meaning a person can only hold the legal recognition, privileges, and protections associated with those titles if they rightfully inherit them, if they marry into a noble family, or if the queen grants them a peerage. Since the only hereditary peerages the queen has granted in decades have been to members of the royal family, realistically, the only ways a person can become a lord or lady are either by inheritance or by marrying into a noble family. It is not possible for someone to buy their way into lordship or ladyship.
I think some people are angry at the fact that there remain positions of privilege in the Western world that one cannot buy their way into, or be elected to (e.g. President), or grind toward (e.g. CEO). I wonder whether that's a form of envy.
Although amusingly while they say deed poll, there’s no such concept in law. In actuality you just start using your new name and that’s basically it.
Needless to say, as soon as I looked up the company (it smelled more like bullshit than a cattle farm) - I saw on a rudimentary Google Search that; of course you can’t buy a square foot of land and be a ‘Lord’.
Needless to say, I got rid of those subscriptions right after.
It’s unfortunate how some YouTubers who get sponsored either don’t even Google the companies they shill for, or in the case of someone like AVGN shilling ‘Raid Shadow Legends’ - they know what they’re shilling is complete shit.
This is the most American paragraph ever written.
In this case that level of disclaimer feels like second order consequences of that: Someone claimed to be Scottish in a way that pissed off an actual Scottish person, who then took it out on the next American of Scottish descent (maybe just with snarky internet comments), and then this person either recieved or saw that and now feels the need for a disclaimer that she doesn't think like that.
I blocked and deleted that contact after sending them a famous obscene image from back in the day which starts with a g and ends in oatse. Land banking schemes are fraud.
Reading any amount of European history and coming away with a desire to have a title of nobility is bizarre to me.
The idea that titles matter is the one that is dead on its arse.
Or everyone pretended to, for the sake of the episode. Possibly sa a bit of a gag.
There are still a handful of official uses of imperial. Miles for driving, as you say, pints for draught beer etc. in pubs, miles and chains for railway distances, maybe a few others. More cases where the labels but not the size have changed, like 568g jars of jam.
It should be noted that JK Rowling does not identify as a transphobe.
IIRC (same caveat) she's being called that as a result of excluding trans women from her definition of women.
If this was about logic (rather than the way certain labels are applied and can become terms of abuse divorced from their original context[0]), then that would imply she was objecting to being called a "radical feminist".
[0] e.g. "artificial", "hysteria", and arguably "Lucifer"
Take the word "woman". Until recently, it had a definition clearly understood by everyone (see Kindergarten Cop). But now, if you don't agree with the redefinition you're labeled a TERF/transphobe.
I can barely remember any of Kindergarten Cop let alone trans issues, but a random film, no matter how entertaining, barely tells you about general culture, let alone what is "clearly understood by everyone" — it's not like the popularity of the MCU is evidence of "everyone" being pagans even though it features a race of gods as main characters.
The amount of people who are scottish or have historical roots to Scotland is very high. People buy clan colors, people buy fun titles because they want to feel connected to a history that has shaped who they have become.