You can’t buy one square foot of land in Scotland and become a Scottish lord(talesoftimesforgotten.com)
talesoftimesforgotten.com
You can’t buy one square foot of land in Scotland and become a Scottish lord
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2022/06/15/no-you-cant-buy-one-square-foot-of-land-in-scotland-and-become-a-scottish-lord/
318 comments
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
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.
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.
The ruling closes with the following remarks:
> 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.
> 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.
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. 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. 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?
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070302111533/http://www.seanha...
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...
> Though of course parliament could decree that the moon is green and sealand is British, and for the latter no other country would care.
Most would probably not care about the former either.
Most would probably not care about the former either.
Sealand is absolutely nuts and pretty dodgy but something about it is admirable anyway. I really ought to sail over there and salute them.
As a heads-up, they're not there year-round as the water level rises within the structure.
I think they're mostly based down a back street in Southend, aren't they?
My mistake. Leigh on Sea. Apologies to the Leigh on Sea folk I have inadvertently wronged here :-D
I do believe that’s a perfect illustration of how sovereignty works in the real world. See also: Taiwan.
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.
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.
Can I be a Sovereign Citizen?
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!
Ok, I’ll bite. Can I see it? Can you confirm if anything was up in your prison wallet?
https://i.imgur.com/RXNrYmv.png
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.
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.
Wow, gross. Incredible lengths they’ll go to for nothing.
That was literally what you said. Didn't expect that lol. Sorry.
That's actually quite chilling and a serious violation of the person. I'm sorry you had to deal with it.
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.
Example: Ukraine. They are being somewhat successful at defending themselves, and stomping the shlit out of Russia, at least so far.
I don't know what your definition of "stomping" is but you should refer to this map https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641...
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.
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.
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.
Also happend near Italy.
Italy went further and declared formal war on the new country.
It is the only war Italy has won.
Italy went further and declared formal war on the new country.
It is the only war Italy has won.
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.
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.
Or you could just call yourself lord regardless, and the monarch won’t appear and throw you in the oubliette.
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.)
(Putting people in oubliettes is illegal under UK law anyway.)
> 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.
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.
And what happens when the ECHR starts oppressing people? It's turtles all the way down!
Pshhh, we all know turtles would never oppress people. Gödel, Escher, and Bach, though, would be an Eternal Golden Braid.
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.
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? 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."
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."
> 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.
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...
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...
> 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.
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.
The ECHR has no such powers over signatories.
The ECHR has no such powers over signatories.
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?
https://verfassungsblog.de/uks-potential-withdrawal-european...
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
Why is becoming a Scottish Lord desirable in the first place ? explained for someone who doesn't live in Scotland or any of the neighbouring Isles ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eh, I’m German and almost bought a royal baker title some years ago. It’s mainly fun ;)
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
They had 10% of world population at the time conquest began so just by that metric nah
What level of population is required for one's culture to be considered interesting or worth preserving?
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.
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.
What other genocides do you know of that killed more than 10% of the world population?
1. That’s not my point
2. You should brush up on world history before trying to zing others https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol...
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."
Ok apologies for anti-zing then.
> 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)
> 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)
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.)
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.)
I doubt it confers any practical modern day benefits aside from the Right of the Braggart.
I imagine it isn't. It's simply something you can mention during drinks.
And the correct term is laird btw.
And the correct term is laird btw.
> 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.
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.
Scottish Lords and Ladies get a free pint from their local pub the third Tuesday of the month between 3-5pm.
Only if they loudly declaim their status to all present...
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.
And I believe there is a requirement to do a funny little dance…
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.
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.
It's bought as a fun gag gift.
I think it’s a holdover from when airlines and other service industries would treat their customers with titles more favorably.
Or the square foot grant when you buy a bottle of Laphroaig... I have a few, though I'd strongly doubt they're contiguous.
The only way to know for sure is to go check it out :)
And while you're there, take the Water to Whiskey tour: https://whiskystories.com/2017/02/18/laphroaig-water-to-whis...
And while you're there, take the Water to Whiskey tour: https://whiskystories.com/2017/02/18/laphroaig-water-to-whis...
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.
Still a nice day out with a picnic by the water source, as long as weather cooperates.
> They don't do water to whiskey anymore
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.
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.
the distillers wares tour at laphroaig is much better imo: https://www.laphroaig.com/gb/book-islay-distillery-tour#id=d...
went a few years ago
went a few years ago
I think the uisge tour (formerly known as w2w but now without peat digging) is basically just distillers wares with a picnic first.
> 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.
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.
[deleted]
This was a great and informative article, but one thing it misses is that there is in fact another way to purchase a 'legitimate' peerage title (though the cost is much much higher). I recall reading about it a while back here [1]. Basically, you pay a (broke) noble family to legally adopt you. Apparently there's brokers and everything to get you connected.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-02/even-if-y...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-02/even-if-y...
This doesn't really work in the UK. The rules of succession to a title vary depending on the specific title but they almost always include the phrase "heirs of the body" of the original grantee. In other words, they only pass to natural descendants not to adopted ones.
To get peerage all you need is to be cozy with the current Tory leader. See Lebedev et al.
He also had to chuck him £10,000 - so it wasnt exactly free. The donation did probably cover a whole bunch or other favours than just a peeerage - cheap perhaps but not free.
10 grand is basically free for the klept.
basically free yes, but shows how desperate / corrupt the person being bribed by such a paltry sum is.
I know a man who did that, he's now using one of the oldest German noble titles. It's also how the current house (Bernadotte) took over in Sweden, through (forced) adult adoption.
Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt (who was married to Zsa Zsa Gabor) is well known for doing this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Prinz_von_A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Prinz_von_A...
With every bottle of Laphroaig (Scotch Whisky from Islay) comes a code you can use to register 1 square foot of land at the Laphroaig Distillery on Islay. Of course, it's also only vanity, but you can actually visit the plot and they pay you "rent" (1 dram of Whisky at the bar) when you visit the distillery.
Is there a limit to how many drams you can get per visit this way?
(Not that this would be a very cost-effective way to obtain extra whisky!)
(Not that this would be a very cost-effective way to obtain extra whisky!)
You can only register one plot.
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.
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.
sorry barkeep. i had to double rent. and i've registered a lot of bottles.
This is amazing. Thanks for the share!
don't be stupid; buy her a star: https://starregister.org/
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.
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.
My wife loves this stuff, knows it not serious, doesn't care. She's bought me both, a star name and a sq. ft. in Scotland.
Does that make you a Star Lord?
The UK already has Time Lords, so why not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal
Can you give me her email? I've got some quality bridges!
Ask her to buy you an acre of land on the moon or Mars next
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.
Really makes you wonder what the word "official" means
How about a black hole?
Is this a joke?
Is this a joke?
I thought so, until I read Death's End.
I thought so, until I read Death's End.
Yes, as in, anyone can start a star registry and charge people for an entry. It's all meaningless, so NFTs seem like a perfect fit.
I have here a piece of paper which states that I own this piece of paper.
> 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?
I've been on the internet a lot, sometimes even without ads blocked, and never encountered this. Do they geotarget Americans?
The ones I've seen are from in-video ads (where the YouTuber themselves have a sponsorship deal and dedicate a part of the video to it).
American, I see them on TV and on the internets regularly, and have been for at least 5-8 years.
There was a MMA fighter on YouTube that I used to watch that would hock this crap. Would you like to guess why I stopped watching?
Not that I’ve seen, but at this point my targeted ads are all industrial products.
American here, have not seen this in my many corners of the web.
Scott Disick (of Kardashians fame) gave them quite a bit of American publicity a few years back.
I haven't seen them very often but I'm sure I'll get targeted ads now!
I see this a lot
browsing FB from France (with en locale though).
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.
As far as I'm aware, yes
I see them all the time.
Right when Detroit was at it's lowest and about to declare bankruptcy I had a friend buy an empty lot, put up a website and sell a square foot of the city to anyone. In Michigan at least it attracted a lot of publicity.
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...
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...
I kinda wondered about all those stupidly cheap lots. At the price they are going for, there is a huge number of people in America that could buy them just for speculative reasons. Turns out if you do that, the city will take them back if you don't fix up the house and get it occupied.
Source: Friend of mine bought cheap property in Detroit. Threatened with a lawsuit, so he gave it up to the city.
Source: Friend of mine bought cheap property in Detroit. Threatened with a lawsuit, so he gave it up to the city.
I was slightly tempted to do the same. Glad it was triggering my "too good to be true" radar.
This is fraud, they are literally selling you nothing.
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.
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.
Laphroaig used to give land with every whisky purchase: https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Laphroaig-whisky-free-land-in-Sco...
> It is not possible for someone to buy their way into lordship or ladyship.
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.
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.
The House of Lords appointment process has been notorious for cronyism since at least the days of Tony Blair and continuing to the present. In 2020 Boris Johnson even made a Russian newspaper owner and son of a KGB agent a lord!
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.
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.
Long before Blair, even. Lloyd George had a semi-official price list for honours, and I'm sure he was not the first. The current price is supposed to be £3m to the Conservative party.
Lloyd George was planning to pack the House of Lords, in order to control and discredit it. So selling the seats kind of made sense.
It's kinda embarassing that many of my favorite Youtubers are promoting this.
The YouTube ecosystem feels so dirty.
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.
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.
To an extent, this is just how life is.
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'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/$) should win out. There are some … requirements for that, though, like a good flow of information, and that's hard in a marketplace where actors lie, fraudsters, but increasingly "legitimate" companies as well. We all see the stories from the FTC et al. where the enforcement penalty is paltry. I.e., the cost of doing business.
Better consumer protections. But nobody cares about things like that, presently, as we're too busy having conniptions over far stupider things.
We have laws against it. Prosecute people. The biggest problem AFAICT is other countries don't give a damn about fraud (as long as it isn't against their own), and, e.g., American phone companies continue to permit falsifying caller ID.
The idea of capitalism is that a better product (i.e., one offering more utility/$) 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.
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 don't think there are many companies looking to sponsor youtubers that AREN'T at least sketchy.
You shouldn’t listen to people who promulgate such obvious scams.
Is there a yelp for YouTubers?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
> some YouTubers call out other YouTubers from time to time
Or most of the time: Calling out Flat-Earthers and other tinfoil-hattery is most of what SciManDan does.
Or most of the time: Calling out Flat-Earthers and other tinfoil-hattery is most of what SciManDan does.
Like everything else -- what evidence do they present and what credentials do they posses that makes them a valuable interpreter of such evidence.
Credentials? They're on YouTube! Look at that follower count! Surely that's more important than actual credentials!
"If it's on the internet, it's true" is a real thing.
"If it's on the internet, it's true" is a real thing.
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?
It's not dissimilar to the scientific method.
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.
[deleted]
This includes people who I think are absolutely reputable in their specialty, such as
https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleshipNewJersey
https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleshipNewJersey
You can block sponsored content with a browser extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/
To me, I instantly doubt anything they try to sell on Youtube. Even if not scam, it's probably just a low quality product/service
I actually wonder what is left if you block all even somewhat questionable sponsors.
I am thankful none of my favourite ones do, but one of my guilty-pleasure channels does. Not that any of their other sponsors is much better…
These people give titles for free:
https://www.ulc.org/
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.
https://www.ulc.org/
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.
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"
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.
Clearly we need a new nation where lord and ladyship flows from NFTs. That way there's no confusion and no scams.
dash s.
dash s.
As always blockchain adds no value to the idea.
You can just buy it here: https://sealandgov.org/shop/become-a-lord-lady-baron-or-baro...
You can just buy it here: https://sealandgov.org/shop/become-a-lord-lady-baron-or-baro...
"NFT" and "no scam" in the same comment. Bold.
I think 'dash s' meant '/s', i.e. sarcastically bold.
This comment shows how unnecessary the /s is. Even if you write it people will take it seriously.
Additionally, it destroys the irony for the readers who understand the /s.
Additionally, it destroys the irony for the readers who understand the /s.
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 '–'.)
(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 '–'.)
TBH, I understood it was sarcasm. I thought it was funny to note the combination of "NFT" and "no scam" anyway.
As is including “no confusion”
My wife and I bought one for our cat as a gag. We hope they plant a tree. Even if they don't, it's brought me enough amusement to be worth it.
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.
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?
nah, there's a bunch of terms, and the idea is that this will protect forests. but you can visit it!
https://establishedtitles.com/pages/faqs-ii
https://establishedtitles.com/pages/faqs-ii
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.
You’d better be treating Lord Whiskers with the proper respect!
Only fancy feast for the young highness.
Only fancy feast for the young highness.
If you're looking for a traditional title, why not buy membership in a London livery company? I believe some of them can be joined for a fee nowadays. This awards you Freedom of the City of London, which comes with some ancient privileges like the right to carry a sword in public and the right to herd sheep over London Bridge.
> This awards you Freedom of the City of London, which comes with some ancient privileges like the right to carry a sword in public and the right to herd sheep over London Bridge.
That appears to be just as much bunk/urban legend as the topic of TFA...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City_of_London
That appears to be just as much bunk/urban legend as the topic of TFA...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City_of_London
I don't see in the wiki article how this is "bunk" or an "urban legend" - care to elaborate?
Ok, let’s start with the City of London:
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).
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).
It's interesting; I read these sources completely differently. The first doesn't enumerate any privileges of the title. For example, it doesn't mention voting rights afforded to liverymen in London's traditional elections (the titles are basically sinecures, but they do come with money and a certain amount of prestige so there's arguably a point to them).
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.
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.
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'.
[deleted]
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.
> 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.
I researched these a while ago and the way these “titles” work is simple: you change your name by deed poll to “Lord Appleseed” or whatever you fancy.
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.
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.
Basically like buying "land" in the metaverse.
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 start early you can make a fortune like the guys who now own the black sun
When I was much (much) younger I bought one of these titles. Obviously its complete BS and I never called myself a 'Laird' because its cringe. But you would be surprised how beautifully put together the packages are. The paper is like thick parchment and there is this nice looking wax seal. They also put together a kit with lots of information and photographs of your so-called "land." The land that I "bought" was part of a nature preservation project so they were at least using some of the money to do something good with. I'm not saying its not completely misleading. But I think it would still be a cool gift for someone if it was priced right.
Shamefully, a few YouTubers I have subscribed to for a while started shilling this bullshit as video sponsorships.
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.
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.
> 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.
This is the most American paragraph ever written.
This is the most American paragraph ever written.
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.
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.
[deleted]
A predecessor to the NFT scam
But you can trade your Brooklyn Bridge for one.
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!?
This practice led to a big defamation case involving a Scottish politician. Seems like the company involved was basically a tax avoidance scheme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51832504
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51832504
See, that's why I invested my money into a honorary PhD of Psychic Sciences instead.
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.
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.
> it occurred to me that the target market for these fake title companies overlaps considerably with the online history community.
Reading any amount of European history and coming away with a desire to have a title of nobility is bizarre to me.
Reading any amount of European history and coming away with a desire to have a title of nobility is bizarre to me.
Sure you can. The reality is that titles are no longer protected, and you will no longer get your land taken away and your head cut off for declaring yourself a lord.
The idea that titles matter is the one that is dead on its arse.
The idea that titles matter is the one that is dead on its arse.
great, now you're also going to tell me I don't own any plot of Islay land from all those bottles of Laphroaig
Are these guys really telling me now I wasted £14.99 in 2005 on a square foot of land from play.com?
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.
Or everyone pretended to, for the sake of the episode. Possibly sa a bit of a gag.
[deleted]
Scotland uses the metric system, no?
Yes and no. The UK is a mix of imperial and metric. Stone is still used for mass/weight (mostly weighing people), miles for driving, but metric for most other things. Which leads to fuel being sold in liters, but efficiency being measured using mpg.
Stone is now a 'folk' measure. People still think in them and use them, but all 'official' uses (health records, for example) are kilograms.
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.
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.
The only even quasi-official use of the stone is in horse racing (to measure the weight carried by the horse in a handicap race), which is also IIRC the last surviving use of the furlong.
Actually, this is good for Lordchain
[deleted]
but what about my certificates from Laphroig? do i still own a few square feet of Islay?
Bethesda: buy Skyrim instead
But can you become a laird?
> One example of a person who has become a laird is the British novelist J. K. Rowling, who is best known as both the author of the bestselling series of children’s novels Harry Potter and also arguably the most influential proponent of transphobia in the English-speaking world today.
It should be noted that JK Rowling does not identify as a transphobe.
It should be noted that JK Rowling does not identify as a transphobe.
"Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is the etymology of "TERF", which is IIRC what she's objecting to being called (but I don't know because the search results are polluted by the drama of the arguments rather than the actual causes).
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"
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"
TERF and transfobic are both terms used to smear people who don't agree with some changes. They're rarely targeted at bad people. Instead, the terms are used to bully people into agreeing with unwanted changes.
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.
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.
The medical community has a much more "it depends what you mean" attitude to gender (androgen insensitive XY vs. normal XX to name one of at least a dozen edge cases), and various nation's legal communities have recognised transitioning for a long time now. Culturally, attitudes have also varied a lot historically even prior to meaningful medical interventions.
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.
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.
Many racists don't identify as racist.
I was enjoying this essay until it was interrupted by this pseudoscience gibberish.
Oh? Why is that?
Are you asking why it should be noted? I'd say because often the Internet makes its mind up about things on limited evidence, or things getting exaggerated as they're repeated, and it's nice to hear the subject's side as well. Otherwise we might be left thinking Justine Sacco is racist etc.
anoonmoose(1)
kelnos(2)
Spivak(3)
lostgame(2)
nailer(3)
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.
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.
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.