So with all the news about Scottish independence currently going about I thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth about the subject and at the same time provide a bit of an explanation as to the reasons why this has come about now. This subject, in my opinion, is much more far reaching than is being reported, and it has already had very large consequences in this country...
The basis of Scottish independence is the Treaty of Union 1706 in-which, the story goes, that the Kingdom of England united with the Kingdom of Scotland to form Great Britain, and what would later become the UK or United Kingdom of Great Britain (it wasn't in any way as straightforward as that, as we will see later). So fast forward on to today - the Scottish National Party want to be independent from the UK, and apparently there's going to be a referendum in Scotland about whether to go independent in September. Now, Scotland could only become independent if the treaty was up, or nullified, and in my opinion, based on my research, the treaty is already up, and I will now explain a bit more and provide evidence to back up this statement....
The treaty was formed in 1706 (it was the 'Act' of Union that was passed in 1707). Now the way that the UK government and Monarchy, etc are run is largely Hebrew in nature. For example, you may notice if you look up some treaties from around the 1700s or 1800s that in the introductory section of the treaty they give praise to the 'Most High' - this is a Hebrew term for Ellyon - a deity. There are many other aspects of the government and monarchy which are based around Hebrew culture (e.g. the Banks and the English language itself), but I won't go into them all here. In Hebrew tradition there is something called a 'Jubilee' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)). A jubilee states that there are fifty years for an agreement governing the ownership of land to last, and it is in the forty ninth year (which is 7 cycles of 7 years) that a decision is made whether to re-institute the agreement or end it. So, based on the Jubilee cycle, if you kept on going forward in cycles of 50 years from the time the treaty was signed you would eventually reach the year 2006. Obviously, then the 49th year for that particluar Jubilee would be in 2005.
So 2005 would have been the most recent year for the decision to have been made whether or not to continue with the treaty. Now if you have a close look at what was happening, government wise, in 2005 you will find some very interesting things...firstly, and foremost you had a piece of legislation being passed which abolished the feudal land system in 'Scotland' (see... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/contents). The feudal (or 'fee' dal) system, for those who don't know is basically the system of land ownership that the vast majority of people living in the western world would have grown up in, whereby the 'state' or Monarch or whoever, claims ownership of all of the land in a country, and then the people or 'citizens' have to pay to live on it - so this system includes the use of mortgages, the of renting property, council tax, etc. Now, passing this kind of legislation is obviously the 'government' saying 'we no-longer have any claim on the land', and to do it in just 'Scotland' is a very big sign.
The second piece of major legislation that I will provide as evidence that the treaty is over is the constitutional reform act of 2005. A major effect of this act was the establishment of a supreme court for the UK, but something else that it also done which I am more interested in is the demotion of the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord chief justice was, prior to the the act, the person in charge of the queen's bench division of the uk court system. The Queen's bench is the 'de jure' court in the UK (or it was prior to 2005). Many other scholars, and lecturers have pointed to the queen's bench as the place to go if you want to work with real law i.e. natural law, as opposed to the commercial law that is in practice in the other 'de facto' courts such as county court, magistrates court, etc. The queen's bench is really run by the monarch, but she or he can appoint someone to act in her place which is why we had the lord chief justice. If you watch the HBO TV series 'Game of Thrones' then the queen's bench would be the equivalent of when the farmers and other townspeople were bringing their greivances and problems to Kalisi after she decided to stay and rule in Meeren. So the queen's bench is like the old time court from before the running of the country (Albion) was taken over by the city of London (the crown).
Now, back to the reform act....the act created a new position called the 'president of the queen's bench' which is currently filled by a guy called Igor Judge. This removed the Lord Chief Justice from the Queen's bench and demoted him to only being head of the court system of england and wales. So, to summarise what actually happened....under the treaty, prior to 2005, the lord chief justice was the head of the UK court system, as the UK was coming to an end there could no-longer be a head of a UK court system, so a new position was created (president of the queen's bench) which now covers the re-instigated Albion aka Alba aka Scotland, and the lord chief justice got bumped down to only being head of England and wales.
A bit more evidence pointing towards the UK coming to an end in 2005...Here are a few governmental agencies which were also formed in 2005 or around that time period....
HMRC
HM Passprt Office (formed in April 2006)
National archives merged with the office of public sector information in 2006
...as you can see, some very integral agencies were re-formed during this time period.
Now to connect the 7/7 incidents with all of this....well firstly you have to understand that the 'idiot circus' as I like to call them, or those better known as the 'establishment' try to use rituals as a means to invoke some sort of power directed towards whatever plan they want to achieve. This can come in many different forms, such as a music concert, a meeting between heads of state, or, as has often been done in the past, a staged so called 'terrorist' attack, or an event of a similar nature. For more in-depth coverage of these types of events, as well as commentary or many other subjects of note, I advise you to listen to the Super Heru Radio show by Aseer the Duke of Tiers http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-duke-of-tiers.
The jubilee tradition states that on the tenth day, of the seventh month, of the seventh year a trumpet should be sounded. Well it wasn't quite the tenth day of July that the 7/7 bombings happened, but it was the seventh month (July) of the seventh year, of the seventh cycle (since 1956) plus, due to the bombings the UK was asked to observe a 2 minute silence on the 10th of July.
So based on all of the evidence presented above, it is my opinion that the treaty of union ended in 2005. Anyone who has further evidence for or against this then please feel free to comment below. The treaty being over would have massive consequences for the people of this nation. I'll have more on that in another post. Also, there would be very significant ramifications for the city of london corporation, i.e. the crown, a lot of which I am still working out myself, and I'll be sure to post on here as soon as I reach any major conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment