Dennis Cavanan

[Doon frae Troon]

The respected former left wing MP has stated that King George should never rule over Scotland.
This has sparked an interesting debate.

Roughly 70 years to sort it out.

 

[Foxholer]

The respected former left wing MP has stated that King George should never rule over Scotland.
This has sparked an interesting debate.

Roughly 70 years to sort it out.

1. 'Proves' several of the views in the Ed Miliband thread.
2. Does the Queen really Rule over GB? Or even any part of her 'realm'?

 

[chrisd]

2. Does the Queen really Rule over GB? Or even any part of her 'realm'?

Er, no she doesn't!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Er, no she doesn't!

I always thought that she could dissolve Parliament
Did she not do so in Australia a few years back?

 

[Yerman]

er....Canavan I think.

 

[SocketRocket]

She 'Reigns' over us. Not, 'Rules' over us. She doesn't make rules.

Interestingly. It was the King of Scotland, James I who united the thrones of England and Scotland.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Thanks.......I'm getting quite careless recently.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

If she can dissolve Parliament I think you will find rules more appropriate than reigns

.

 

[SocketRocket]

If she can dissolve Parliament I think you will find rules more appropriate than reigns

.

She cant dissolve Parliament by her own will. She only dissolves it at the request of the Prime-Minister for a General Election.

 

[Iaing]

She 'Reigns' over us. Not, 'Rules' over us. She doesn't make rules.

Interestingly. It was the King of Scotland, James I who united the thrones of England and Scotland.

Don't you mean James VI ?

 

[Foxholer]

Did she not do so in Australia a few years back?

No she did not!

Though that act of double dissolution by the Governor General in 1975 was, imo, the single most positive deed for democracy performed in my lifetime! And though the Australian Constitution was changed, the GG still retains the power to dismiss the PM.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I thought the GG was the Queens representative.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Don't you mean James VI ?

Wasn't he James VI of Scotland, but James I of the United Kingdom. Both apply technically.

 

[Foxholer]

I thought the GG was the Queens representative.

Well, you got that part right.

But that's not all that being a GG involves. There's a constitutional responsibility to Australia that ends at GG level.

So it wasn't the Queen that dismissed Whitlam, it was the GG.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

So he rules in the Queens name?

 

[Foxholer]

So he rules in the Queens name?

What makes you think that?

You are probably wrong on 3 aspects! See if you can list them!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Do you know, when I posted I said to myself, that should have been he/she!!

If she is the Queens representative, and not the British Governments, I assume Oor Lizzie has a big say in the appointment.

 

[Foxholer]

Do you know, when I posted I said to myself, that should have been he/she!!

If she is the Queens representative, and not the British Governments, I assume Oor Lizzie has a big say in the appointment.

No! Prime Minister recommends; Monarch Agrees. Though not actually written down - so 'constitutional convention' rather than decree. Up to 1926, British Government could Veto recommendation. George V tried, unsuccessfully, to veto Aus recommendation in 1930 - recommendation of an Australian for GG was deemed inappropriate! Triggered significant Commonwealth constitutional change (equality of Legislation - no longer 'Dominions').

GG is (now) nothing to do with British Government.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

See that, we have gone full circle back to King George!

Is that British or Ossie Prime Minister recommendation?

If British then the Queen has the final say as to who is appointed as she could disagree with every recommendation.

 

[Iaing]

Wasn't he James VI of Scotland, but James I of the United Kingdom. Both apply technically.

Not in the context that Socketrocket used.