Oh, no, my Brooklyn Bridge is caught up in a DAO that was taken over by scammers using a sybil attack! My only hope is to buy more BRIDGECOIN and get back a majority stake! What if they steal my NFTs!?
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.
We're discussing what we as individuals can do, but a yelp for youtubers isnt needed and wouldnt solve a larger misinformation problem anyways (yelp didnt make bad food disappear).
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?
Not really but some YouTubers call out other YouTubers from time to time. There is a mini cottage industry that was made out of just calling out the Paul brothers.
The usual technique is to build one's own opinion.
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.
Alternate option, because my study of humans says your theory is wrong, but mine is right.
>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.
Except it's usually: I trust creator X to be a domain expert on alcoholic beverages and cocktails. Now they run an ad for Company Y that is about information security.
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.
… I mean, charlatans are a fact of life, yes, but it doesn't need to be that way.
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.
Everything becomes a race to the bottom, until every last ounce of perceived value has been extracted and the platform exists only has a shattered husk of what it once was.
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.
They need to pay the bills and it seems the only people willing to pay them are companies that spend more on marketing than product development, or otherwise literally white labeling cheap goods with lots of branding.
I don't think there are many companies looking to sponsor youtubers that AREN'T at least sketchy.
I bought my friend a lordship at Sealand one year for Christmas. I'd been thinking about the Scotland thing first, but decided I'd rather gift him a real title in an arguably fake country than a fake title in a real one.
I like how the moment something happened there that even slightly piqued the UK's interest they immediately sent a warship to it and suddenly they weren't so sovereign lol
One thing I remember from my (only) poli sci class: you are only a sovereign country is other sovereign countries think you are. Much (all?) of international politics is based on consensus and agreement.
Meh I mean you can be "sovereign" even if almost everyone around you hates you and the entire world doesn't recognize you, even if you are weak and others have "interest" in hurting you, so long as it's more hassle than it's worth for them to eliminate you. See the northeastern cantons of Rojava in Northern Syria.
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.
lol, you can try. Last time I tried to invoke merely my constitutional rights, the police got a warrant to anal probe me in retaliation [I will post part of the warrant if anyone asks]. Good luck!
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.
Not really. A country also has to have the ability to be able to defend itself. If every single country in the world recognized Sealand, but they only had a BB gun to defend itself, and 5 guys came up in a rowboat with some AK-47s, and took over Sealand easly, then that's that. What's the point of being recognized?
Example: Ukraine. They are being somewhat successful at defending themselves, and stomping the shlit out of Russia, at least so far.
Seems like Russia doesn’t have that much control. The borders are confusing me a bit. It looks like the top part of Russia’s red borders are mostly in Russia. Not Ukraine.
Russia thought they were going to conquer all Ukraine in 3 days. How many generals, colonels, captains has Russia lost? How much equipment - trucks, cars, planes?
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.
Really? I must have forgotten that part of the story.
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.
> It was a loophole which has since been closed by extending the territorial waters of the UK
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.
> 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.
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.
> I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas.
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.
> Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended.
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?
It's really a shame how the UK abuses the word country for internal divisions, and the US abuses the word state for the same purpose, so now we have to either accept weirdness or use unwieldy terms like sovereign state.
I know there's good historical reasons, but it muddles language regardless.
Denmark is yet another multiple-country sovereign state- Denmark (proper), Greenland, and the Faroe Islands are constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.
That's not such a great example, since Greenland and the Faroe Islands are both of zero significance. (Greenland is significant geographically, but not as a political entity.)
Well, I don't speak German (only recognize a few words), but the meanings of "Land" seem to include both "country" and "state". (As it's part of quite a few country names in German. Including Deutschland itself :) )
“Deutschland” historically meant “the territory where German-speaking people live”, not a country. The name comes from early Middle Ages when the concept of a national country was not established yet. The idea of Deutschland as a country exists only from 19 century.
Well, that's true for most countries. The idea of nation states originated (or at least became popular) in the 19th century. Before that the areas were mostly organized around rulers (like kings).
But it has little to do with the current meaning of the word. I've looked up a few more countries that have the word 'Land' in their name: Weißrussland, England, Estland, Finnland, Griechenland, Russland, etc.
There's no abuse about it. The UK invented the English language, you can't really claim they are using it wrong. Country, state and nation are different things.
Keep in mind that a modern US state is not the same as US state 200 years ago. At this point, the US federal government dictates substantially more of every aspect of a states rule: from education to exports, licensure to healthcare.
The US was an unique attempt at parallel state rule, but consolidation is always inevitable.
However, the legal systems can still be wildly different. The ounce of marijuana that anyone over 21 can buy from a state-licensed shop and possess in Colorado could mean a $2000 fine and up to 6 months in jail in Texas.
> Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom (which is also a country).
Depending on how you define "country", of course. The definition that makes Scotland "a country" seems mostly historical and peculiarly British. (One would think that also makes Northern Ireland "a country". Is it? Or Cornwall? If not, why not?)
In ordinary day-to-day language, though, "a country" is mostly synonymous with "a sovereign nation", which Scotland isn't. As several comments in this discussion have shown, it seems mostly to be a question of recognition by others, mainly neighbours. Scotland's closest neighbour, the United Kingdom, certainly doesn't seem to recognise it as a sovereign nation. As for international consensus, the closest proxy seems to be membership of the United Nations. Which Scotland has as much as Sealand does. (Perhaps the easiest way to see the conflicting interpretations is that something can't by definition be sovereign if it's part of something else.)
So "Scotland is a country" is true for some values of "country", but not all. (And IMnshO, not the most pertinent ones.)
Sure, but the rumor is believed by just enough people that you can get away with selecting 'Lord' in every single paper or electronic form that asks for a title.
As stated in the article, if you live in any number of countries (incl the US), you are completely within your legal rights to call yourself Lord anyway. You don't need a fraudulent urban legend to 'get away with it'.
I remember people used to buy and sell virtual real estate in at least one of the various metaverses that have come and gone over the years. Second Life, maybe?
> If you’ve been on the internet much, you’ve probably encountered an advertisement at some point claiming that, if you own any amount of land in Scotland, even if it is only one square foot, then you legally qualify for the title of “lord” or “lady.”
I've been on the internet a lot, sometimes even without ads blocked, and never encountered this. Do they geotarget Americans?
they were on facebook for a couple of years in "sponsored ads" boxes that pop up in the feed. I think I blocked them after a while and never saw them again.
> 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 wonder if one day in the grim and distant future, we'll displace aliens using this registry akin to how US land was repossessed from the native people and then occupied by US citizens. That'd make a good sci-fi book.
I was hoping there was going to be some minimum definition, and that I could call myself Lord, but alas, my ~300m^2 of land doesn't seem to qualify me either (I live there, I didn't get scammed ~3k times over for 1 sq foot).
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.
There are sufficient people who value items that give them (real or imagined) prestige with other people (especially those of a similar mindset) to sustain these industries.
Time was, you could be a Senator in the American South without the land... or the actual job. They'd call you that in the bar or restaurant, just in case your were.
> 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.
If you make a reservation at the Marriott they have a long list of titles you can claim. You can say you are a "Lord" there. Also an example that "Established Titles" makes is that you can have your credit card say "Lord so-an-so"
For the Marriott, sure. But for credit cards, normally you can't though. It's not part of your name, and it's not a legal title. Most KYC processes will stop you if you try.
I mean, you know, would you rather have a chat with Ben Kingsley or Sir Ben Kingsley? I know I'd rather chat with Lord Banana699 than just plain-ol' Banana699
I'm guessing that many of these are targeting Americans.
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.
I don’t think it’s related to melting pot thing - new world history is just not that rich compared to european/asian ones due to its recency and (for the most part) lack of conflict
There was a tremendous amount of conflict in the new world, just mostly not between countries (the conquest of the Americas had a death toll of 70-100m people).
Sure but those are relatively few events (though large in magnitude) compared to stuff that was going on in europe/asia. And americas are fucking huge compared to europe and coastal east asia. Turns out when lota people are sandwiched in tight geography, competing for resources for thousands of years a lot of stuff happens!
Isn't that sort of related? People in the mixing pot want to find some rich historical legacy to connect to so they can feel distinct from the rest of the pot.
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.
Counterpoint: New World history is/was just as rich and valuable; it was just systematically erased by one of the largest genocides in history spanning from pole to pole.
Yikes, you always twist someone’s words like that in a discourse? All I said the history is not as rich which makes sense given there was like 10x fewer people here on a huge territory. But also North American tribes didnt even have much written down unlike the South American civilizations
You literally said that by the metric of population, their history was not as rich. I don't see how that's twisting your words at all.
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.
It wasn't an attempted zing, I was curious.
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."
> 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)
It would have an appeal to me, because it's absurd. I'm an American and was raised up with the notion that royalty and monarchies are patently absurd, a feeling that has only grown as I've aged. Having a Lordship would be like owning a three-wheeled car or living in a house that looks like a giant seashell, to my mind. It'd be a funny thing to tell folks about at parties. I might even go about creating knights or whatever if the party was good enough.
It's pretty absurd in the UK, too, and no-one really cares about it.
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.
Titles are a form of addressing people. Sometimes it is just nice to be addressed by something that isn't Mr/Ms/Mx(/Mrs/Miss). Plenty of people have been motivated towards a PhD or MD for among other reasons the hopes of getting to be addressed as Doctor. For various reasons most of the available Titles to be found in our world are old and baroque (sometimes literally), which both has its appeals (a feeling of "tradition") and detriments (hard to get).
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.)
They don't do water to whiskey anymore, the new version is called "uisge". I believe the primary difference is that they don't take you out to dig peat on the new tour (because all the peat is dug mechanically now).
Still a nice day out with a picnic by the water source, as long as weather cooperates.
It's Britain, the country that wants to get out of the European Human Rights Convention because ... it protects human rights. I wouldn't be so sure about oubliettes...
That's a misrepresentation. The UK government merely wants to make the UK supreme court the final authority on some human rights cases in the UK, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The UK is not abandoning the convention, and there are plans to create a UK Bill of Rights.
(Putting people in oubliettes is illegal under UK law anyway.)
What the UK politicians say they want and what the actual bills say are not necessarily aligned. FWIW, the rhetoric that gets hate-quoted at me is mostly in the camp of "rights are bad".
(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?)
> Would it be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette?
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."
> 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).
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.
Holyrood derives its power from Westminster and Westminster can remove it. The UK Parliament is still supreme, but it refrains from making laws in areas that are devolved to local Parliaments (the Sewell convention). It could overturn the Scotland Act that created the Scottish Parliament. In theory, Scotland could ignore Parliament, but that would be akin to unilaterally declaring independence, which is unlikely to go well.
I think this is the point. All of these arrangements are ultimately by consent. Holyrood agrees to recognise Westminster's power, just as the UK agrees to recognise the ECHR.
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?
> what is power except the ability to impose negative consequences for not following instructions?
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.
> 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.
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.
I think prudence really depends on the whim of the executive, since generally the executive is Parliament given the majority it normally possesses. A number of British governments have historically shown little regard for the unpredictable consequences of violating international law.
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...
The monarch can be 'detained at his own pleasure' and even charged with treason and executed as Charles Stuart discovered, or simply run out of the country like his son, James.
Those two things are mutually exclusive. The convention establishes the ECHR as the highest court ruling over matters of the convention and states that are part of the convention are bound to those rulings. Establishing the UK high court as the highest court would be violating the obligations under the convention. So yes, if you want to have the high court be the last court of appeal, you’d have to abandon the convention.
> That's a misrepresentation. The UK government merely wants to make the UK supreme court the final authority on some human rights cases in the UK, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
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.
> I've not encountered these ads though, I guess it would be pretty dumb to geo-target it to people living in Scotland.
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.
Exactly this. It was cheap enough for my husband and I do be lords as a great gag gift, and the framed certificate is on a bookshelf. The night of fun of referring to each other as Lord Alexander & etc. more than paid for the purchase.
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.
Can you do anything with "your" land? Like plant something or erect something on it (I know you're not going to, but if you wanted to, could you)? What about access, is it possible to go see "your" plot? And do they give you GPS coordinates so you can check it out on Google Maps?
of course not -- silly expectation to be able to. I'd have to dig up the packet they sent for any exact details, it had a bunch of fine print about stuff like access and what not.
The description of the businesses feels like someone took the Laprophiag online membership gift of a "plot of land", which clearly a joke, and tried to commercialize it. I wonder which plot of land fake happened first?
Also glad to know from the article I can just go around now calling myself a "Laird"
The article mentions that current law that applies to land in Scotland is an act from 1976 revised in 2012. Not sure which one of the original or revised prevents the selling of "souvenir plots" but it might indicate that it was not forbidden before 1976/2012 so practice may come from before when it was legal to do so.
They didn't write '/s' though, which is why I mentioned it - took me a minute to understand 'dash s' so thought the commenter I replied to might not have.
(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 '–'.)
I find the following passage interesting in the context of modern capitalism:
> 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.
> My most recent McDaniel ancestor who actually lived in Scotland is John McDaniel, who was born in Scotland in around 1760. By 1776, he was living in Frederick County, Maryland. I myself have lived my whole life in the United States and have never even visited Scotland. I do not consider myself Scottish and instead consider myself only an American.
Wouldn't it be more American to claim that the above makes you Scottish?
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.
You have an accurate handle on the situation. I was saying the need to state that someone who clearly has little connection to scotland isn’t Scottish, because so many random Americans pretend to be Scottish , is amazing.
This has been a thing for years, probably even decades. It’s a gag gift but sometimes people take it far too seriously. I’m pretty sure someone on the British show Come Dine With Me had one of these and called themselves a Lady, and everyone thought she was legit. Madness.
> I’m pretty sure someone on the British show Come Dine With Me had one of these and called themselves a Lady, and everyone thought she was legit. Madness.
Or everyone pretended to, for the sake of the episode. Possibly sa a bit of a gag.
Oh the Lord Barron puns that lurk about a famous orange golf cheater known to own Scottish Land of certain golf course overlooked by modern wind machines.
I had some dude try and rope me into one of these land banking scams. He wanted me to build some wordpress site to convince people they could do this on some property he owned. I pretty much told him this: Sketchy people ripping off other sketchy people is funny, but ripping off people with less money than you is a really lame thing to do and not something I'd support whatsoever. I can copy paste one of his messages in reply to that (sic): "Im pretty sure you havent done any ethical hacking in the best of present so talking about sketchy pyramid whatever makes no sence. I told you very clearly i dont do shady illegal bullshit what we do is 100% legit focused on protecting earth and helping people"
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.
There is a large brouhaha in the US currently about alleged trans-exposure (which some claim rises to the level of grooming), and allegedly bringing very young children to sexualized locations such as strip bars for shows with a trans dancer, complete with dollar tipping. There is also an open debate happening around the healthiness of certain hormone treatments at a very young age which also, allegedly, causes sterility, and school pressure to change a gender identity. Likewise, the sports debate primarily around physically advantaged men transitioning into women, dominating female sports in the process.
I believe we should have these discussions openly and freely without attempting to demonize proponents or opponents of either side of a hopefully civil discussion.
She propagates a lot of misinformation beyond such a concern that could plausibly come from somewhere other than deliberate bigotry. Despite spending far more than enough time on the subject for proper research.
One of the most blatant I'd call out is "studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria". That's is a horribly inaccurate statement on par with "vaccines cause autism" and someone that believes it is not even trying to look for real information.
> One of the most blatant I'd call out is "studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria". That's is a horribly inaccurate statement
Your comment doesn’t do what the parent poster asked, which was to show examples of the bigotry you claim. Why is it inaccurate?
For that specific one, there was one study resembling that result, but it wasn't on teens and it wasn't looking at gender dysphoria. Which makes every part of the statement wrong. It's a harmful claim, and with enough similar untruths in an essay directed at the world the best case scenario is that she trusted and parroted a bunch of bigots without looking into the details, and that she's lying about having done significant research.
I was sort of expecting "the second link" to have contradictory research rather than just vague ideas about why a particular study might have been flawed. Nevertheless, thanks for linking Rowling's wonderful, thoughtful essay. Her heart is in the right place. I might just have to read those damn books someday.
I also read the "Reasonable Person's Guide". What should I assume from the fact that the biggest part of this is devoted to complaints about name-calling? The majority of humans DGAF what mean things one internet weirdo called another internet weirdo. If there are actual safety concerns for trans people (and I'm sure there are), don't obscure those concerns behind name-calling butthurt. Doing so makes the whole thing seem like some internet weirdos got bored with doxxing so they invented some new way to annoy society. Do we need a term for getting people fired for trans-"phobic" speech? Will the "reasonable guide" be updated to reflect the fact that Forstater's firing was found on appeal to have been based on impermissible discrimination?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you won't listen to where you're mistaken, when you're badly hurting people, your heart is not in the right place.
I'm not saying that link is perfect but Rowling is wrong in many important ways. Like, I'm not going to write my own essay with better focus.
I oppose "badly hurting people", and the "comprehensive 2015 survey" mentioned in passing indicates that trans people are being hurt, but clearly Rowling also opposes that: "Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men... So I want trans women to be safe." Nothing Rowling has said, or that Forstater or even Berns has said, has "badly hurt" someone in a physical way. One could argue that Berns probably hurt someone's feelings, but that is not important. Feelings aren't important enough to campaign about, aren't important enough to get anybody censored for, and certainly aren't important enough to get anybody fired from any job that isn't directly related to the emotional care of the general public.
In some cases, our political opponents are doing evil. In many cases, including this one, they just have different opinions than we do. "Bigotry" is a real thing that real people have suffered. It isn't the same thing as disagreement, light criticism, or even name-calling. No one mentioned ITT has deprived any trans people of anything. Crying wolf doesn't help those trans people who have suffered actual bigotry. Obviously you realize that.
And the people that listen to her and deprive trans people because of what she said don't count? It's hard for me to take a claim seriously that with how much influence she has, that hasn't happened.
Even if you want to make a distinction, "crying wolf" is not the right analogy.
This hit piece offers much fact but misses the mark on the intent.p and usage. I looked into to this last year and they clearly state you do not own the land and you get a laird title by being part of this estate and the land is held in their name. I don't think anyone thought you are getting an official lordship from the queen. If you did you would be forced to give up your citizenship in Canada unless the prime minister blesses you. You can buy official titles for thousands of dollars but no one expects the same.
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.
318 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 358 ms ] threadHow 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.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleshipNewJersey
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'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 know there's good historical reasons, but it muddles language regardless.
Population of Denmark: 6 million.
Population of Greenland: 0.05 million.
Population of the Faroe Islands: 0.05 million.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Land#German
But it has little to do with the current meaning of the word. I've looked up a few more countries that have the word 'Land' in their name: Weißrussland, England, Estland, Finnland, Griechenland, Russland, etc.
It indeed looks pretty common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico
The US was an unique attempt at parallel state rule, but consolidation is always inevitable.
Thanks global media outlets.
That's a bit different from the Simpsons introducing us to the word "couch-potatoe" in the late 90s.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
Depending on how you define "country", of course. The definition that makes Scotland "a country" seems mostly historical and peculiarly British. (One would think that also makes Northern Ireland "a country". Is it? Or Cornwall? If not, why not?)
In ordinary day-to-day language, though, "a country" is mostly synonymous with "a sovereign nation", which Scotland isn't. As several comments in this discussion have shown, it seems mostly to be a question of recognition by others, mainly neighbours. Scotland's closest neighbour, the United Kingdom, certainly doesn't seem to recognise it as a sovereign nation. As for international consensus, the closest proxy seems to be membership of the United Nations. Which Scotland has as much as Sealand does. (Perhaps the easiest way to see the conflicting interpretations is that something can't by definition be sovereign if it's part of something else.)
So "Scotland is a country" is true for some values of "country", but not all. (And IMnshO, not the most pertinent ones.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51832504
I've been on the internet a lot, sometimes even without ads blocked, and never encountered this. Do they geotarget Americans?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal
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.
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.
https://establishedtitles.com/pages/faqs-ii
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...
> 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.
If not the the customer, then do they really own it?
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.
Or everyone pretended to, for the sake of the episode. Possibly sa a bit of a gag.
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.
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.
There is a large brouhaha in the US currently about alleged trans-exposure (which some claim rises to the level of grooming), and allegedly bringing very young children to sexualized locations such as strip bars for shows with a trans dancer, complete with dollar tipping. There is also an open debate happening around the healthiness of certain hormone treatments at a very young age which also, allegedly, causes sterility, and school pressure to change a gender identity. Likewise, the sports debate primarily around physically advantaged men transitioning into women, dominating female sports in the process.
I believe we should have these discussions openly and freely without attempting to demonize proponents or opponents of either side of a hopefully civil discussion.
https://medium.com/@briehanrahan/a-reasonable-persons-guide-... and a post talking about issues
One of the most blatant I'd call out is "studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria". That's is a horribly inaccurate statement on par with "vaccines cause autism" and someone that believes it is not even trying to look for real information.
Your comment doesn’t do what the parent poster asked, which was to show examples of the bigotry you claim. Why is it inaccurate?
For that specific one, there was one study resembling that result, but it wasn't on teens and it wasn't looking at gender dysphoria. Which makes every part of the statement wrong. It's a harmful claim, and with enough similar untruths in an essay directed at the world the best case scenario is that she trusted and parroted a bunch of bigots without looking into the details, and that she's lying about having done significant research.
I also read the "Reasonable Person's Guide". What should I assume from the fact that the biggest part of this is devoted to complaints about name-calling? The majority of humans DGAF what mean things one internet weirdo called another internet weirdo. If there are actual safety concerns for trans people (and I'm sure there are), don't obscure those concerns behind name-calling butthurt. Doing so makes the whole thing seem like some internet weirdos got bored with doxxing so they invented some new way to annoy society. Do we need a term for getting people fired for trans-"phobic" speech? Will the "reasonable guide" be updated to reflect the fact that Forstater's firing was found on appeal to have been based on impermissible discrimination?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you won't listen to where you're mistaken, when you're badly hurting people, your heart is not in the right place.
I'm not saying that link is perfect but Rowling is wrong in many important ways. Like, I'm not going to write my own essay with better focus.
In some cases, our political opponents are doing evil. In many cases, including this one, they just have different opinions than we do. "Bigotry" is a real thing that real people have suffered. It isn't the same thing as disagreement, light criticism, or even name-calling. No one mentioned ITT has deprived any trans people of anything. Crying wolf doesn't help those trans people who have suffered actual bigotry. Obviously you realize that.
Even if you want to make a distinction, "crying wolf" is not the right analogy.
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.