Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts

Friday, May 8, 2015

Nimrod & Semiramis

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Grandad & Nanna's Bible Story - Chapter 6

by Ken Murray Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Nanna says: “Things went well for awhile after the Flood and Noah lived 350 years after he left the Ark with his family. But, Noah died, when he was 950 years old. That’s very, very old isn’t it?”
His son Shem and his wife had many children who were of the white people (Caucasian). They tended to move north, to live in Europe. (1 Chronicles 1:17)
Another son Japheth and his wife also had lots of children and they became the Asian people who moved east to live. (1 Chronicles 1:5)
Noah’s third son Ham and his wife had children, who had lovely dark skin and they moved into Africa to live. (1 Chronicles 1:8)
Ham’s grandson was Nimrod, whose name means “he rebelled”.
Nimrod was big, strong and popular with many people, because he was a great hunter, but he did not love God and did not keep God’s laws of how to live. He did many bad things like building idols and getting people to worship his false gods. He broke God’s laws and taught people to do as they pleased and sin against God. (Genesis 10:8-9)
He worshipped Satan instead of the true God, and he called Satan “Merodach”, meaning “Lord” or “Master”. (Jeremiah 50:2)
In the Hebrew language Merodach was called “Baal” or the “Sun God”. Nimrod made the sun god, who wasn’t really a god, the head of all his false idol gods. He deceived many people and led them away from the true God of our Father and His Son.
Nimrod came up with an idea to draw people to him in his kingdom of Shinar. (Genesis 10:9-10) “Let’s build the highest tower ever, in my city of Babel, reaching up above the clouds, in honour of my god, the sun god!”
So, many people were tricked by Nimrod, and they worked on his evil tower. But God saw what Nimrod was doing and how it was going to lead to more bad things, like before the Flood.
God came down to the Tower of Babel and He mixed up the people’s language from one single language to many different languages. (Genesis 11:1, Genesis 11:6-7)
They couldn’t understand each other and began to argue loudly and get very angry with each other.
Soon they gave up building the Tower of Babel and began to scatter to other lands, with their families. (Genesis 11:8-9)
If God had not done this, people would have become very evil again, like before the Flood. Because they had one language, they might have easily shared their knowledge to make evil weapons to kill many innocent people.
So, from the Tower of Babel, many languages and nations began to form in the world.
Sadly, many false beliefs, false gods and false religions began to develop, which led people away from the true God. (1 John 4:1)
Shem and his family followed his father Noah and his mother in loving the true God and living by God’s commandments and right way of life.
After Nimrod died, his mother Semiramis gave birth to a baby boy and she tricked people with her lies, about how her son Nimrod was a god and this baby boy had no human father, but was made alive by the sun god.
“This is Nimrod’s son, who is come to restore his father’s kingdom”, she said.
Semiramis, whose other name was Ishtar, came to be known as “the virgin mother” and the “queen of heaven”. (Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah 44:17-19, Jeremiah 44:25) Sunday became her day for worshipping the sun god and it carries that name to this day.
She taught the people false stories, and held evil feast holidays, which later developed into customs that people keep, even today, such as Christmas and Easter, named after the false goddess of Ishtar.
These false holidays were planned by Semiramis and her priests to trick and deceive people away from the true God and God’s “appointed” Holy Days. (Leviticus 23:1-2, Exodus 23:15-16)
Satan has been allowed by God to be the false god of this world, and he was the one who led Nimrod and Semiramis to worship him, as the sun god. (2 Corinthians 4:4)
Now you can understand how Satan worked through Nimrod and Semiramis to cause people to be deceived and to believe lies (Revelation 12:9), just as he caused Eve to believe the first lie, and then to lead Adam astray, as well.
Why do you think God has allowed Satan to be in charge of this world, our child?
Is it to test us, to see if we will be strong and faithful in loving our true God? (Deuteronomy 13:3)
When we are tested and we succeed in doing what is right and not what is wrong, we become stronger in good character, don’t we. We build good habits of choosing what is right, don’t we? (Proverbs 20:11, Ecclesiastes 12:14, Deuteronomy 8:2, Judges 3:4)
By doing what is right, instead of what is wrong, God will give us good success, won’t He? (Joshua 1:8)
God has promised that one day Jesus Christ, his Son, is going to return to this Earth to replace Satan as the ruler of this world. (Jude 14, Revelation 20:4-6, Daniel 7:18, Daniel 7:27, Zechariah 14)
Won’t that be wonderful in the world tomorrow, when the world will be at peace, and people will love and worship the true God, who is our Father and Jesus Christ His Son. (1 John 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Jeremiah 10:10)
Shem and his wife had many children, who loved God and kept God’s laws of how to live.
Grandad says: “Shem’s 7th generation of his great grand children was called Abram.”
Nanna says: “Grandad, let’s save the wonderful story about Abram and his beautiful wife Sarai, for our next Chapter.”
To be continued with Chapter 7…

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

A Page on the World

Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

Posted on Aug 11, 2006 by John Ross Schroeder

Add to my study list

I would like to begin with the credentials of the author. Melanie Phillips is the leading political and current affairs columnist for the Daily Mail . Her insightful, common-sense assessments of modern political life in Britain are hard to equal in the world of British journalism because they are generally based upon the backdrop of the traditional values that built the United Kingdom.

Her latest book, Londonistan, points out that Britain has become the leading European gathering ground for recruitment and financing of Islamist terror groups. The sheer scale of these activities has earned the area the label “Londonistan” by antiterrorist specialists elsewhere in the world.

Mrs. Phillips addresses the overall problem from a number of different angles. For instance, she shows that radical Islamic demands are being appeased by multiculturalism and by a so-called replacement theology put forward by certain Christian theologians who seriously question the necessity for the state of Israel (Mrs. Phillips is Jewish).

Franklin Littell calls this replacement theology Christian anti-Semitism that “rings with the genocidal note. This is the myth that the mission of the Jewish people was finished with the coming of Jesus Christ, that 'the old Israel' was written off with the appearance of 'the new Israel.' To teach that a people's mission in God's providence is finished, that they have been relegated to the limbo of history, has murderous implications, which the murderers will in time spell out” ( The Crucifixion of the Jews, 1996).

The gravity of the problem

Although she allows that the majority of the Muslim community in Britain is law-abiding, Melanie Phillips does insist that “the evidence suggests that the numbers who do support either the aims or the tactics of the jihad are terrifying. According to British officials, up to sixteen thousand British Muslims either are actively engaged in or support terrorist activity, while up to three thousand are estimated to have passed through Al Qaeda training camps, with several hundred thought to be primed to attack the United Kingdom” (p. 9).

But why would Britain allow such reprehensible activities within its borders? Mrs. Phillips states the obvious when she notes that Britain is a country “where traditional morality has been systematically undermined and replaced by an 'anything goes' culture in which autonomous decisions about codes of behaviour have become unchallengeable rights” (p. 25).

This reminds one of the descriptions of ancient Israel in the days of the judges when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25).

The author also takes pains to point out that the threat is not just from a few radical extremists who might rarely succeed like they did when suicide bombers wreaked havoc on the London Underground with the loss of many lives. She believes that the British establishment is in denial about how widespread the threat really is.

Too many erroneously pin the blame on the United States, Israel and even on Britain itself instead of the guilty culprit, which she identifies as radical Islamic ideology.

Melanie Phillips concludes that “the West is under threat from an enemy that has shrewdly observed the decadence and disarray in Europe where Western civilization first began” (p. 285). Those weaknesses are now being exploited on many fronts by those determined to bring down Western civilization as we know it and replace it with a worldwide “umma”—a global community of Islamic believers in submission to Allah.

She further points out that Britain has been the cradle of Western liberty, but urgently needs to squarely face this growing problem and counter it with policies based on “absolute consistency and moral integrity, which arise from the strength of belief in the values that are being defended” (p. 273).

This book review highlights a few crucial points, but cannot really do justice to the massive evidence proffered within its pages that identifies the causes of this disturbing trend threatening Britain's—and Western civilization's—stability and way of life.

The recent deadly train bombings in India, plus a fresh outbreak of violence by terrorist groups against Israel (involving Gaza and Lebanon) that prompted a response unprecedented in recent times, underscore the importance of her warnings and the peril our Western democracies face. WNP

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Great Britain off the Map of Europe?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Great Britain off the Map of Europe?

Posted on Nov 05, 2006 by John Ross Schroeder Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

Add to my study list

We live in an increasingly borderless world. Consider the Internet. E-mail and Web sites transcend geographical borders and no businessperson or banker in America gives a second thought to contacting a colleague in Australia about the possibility of a massive exchange of funds between the two countries.
Transactions in our world today go far beyond the geographical limits of yesterday. This is a time marked by globalization in business and banking. So in the present climate of technology transcending geography we can understand how potentially massive changes to the European political map might become more easily acceptable to the general public. Yet political borders have by no means lost their importance.
Sometimes the most significant news stories only reach two or three national newspapers in Britain and are left off the usual wire services. This happens to be one!
The Sunday Telegraph is one of the most respected newspapers in the United Kingdom. One headline story on Sept. 3 was a real shocker. It read: “New EU Map Makes Kent Part of the Same Nation as France.”
Planned transnational regions
EU plans are for Britain to be divided into five “eurozones.” Inhabitants of the southeastern counties of Kent and East Sussex are projected to be part of Transmanche region joining up with Northern France. Eastern England would be “attached” to certain parts of Germany and the Nordic countries plus the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium.
The Western part of Britain would be called the Atlantic region, also including portions of Spain, France and Portugal. According to the overall scheme, Northwestern Scotland is slated to join Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
The European Union claims that its directives call for all member states to bring their cartographic information into sync with the European Commission.
According to The Sunday Express, apparently “Article 23 of the directive gives the Commission full access to all spatial data currently held by member states, while Article 26 gives the Commission powers to create a new computer infrastructure to collect and co-ordinate data overseen by a European agency” (Sept. 3).
Further, “under the plans the EU will control and harmonise all spatial data such as place names, administrative units and maps, which names of areas, regions, localities, cities, suburbs, towns … or any geographical or topographical feature of public or historical interest will be under EU control rather than national governments” (ibid., emphasis added throughout).
Do we realize just where these plans may be leading? If this information is anywhere near to being accurate, we should all note that even the military implications of such data are frightening to contemplate should allegiances change radically in the future.
The practical implications
This radical redrawing of the map of Europe has far-reaching practical implications. For instance, its implementation would smooth the way for a European Union-wide property tax embracing all member states. British Conservative Party spokesmen commented that EU chiefs were pursuing an agenda “to undermine national identities and impose a United States of Europe by stealth” (ibid.).
Both The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Express published separate editorials highlighting the seriousness of the overall problem. The latter paper headlined its opinion piece with the words, “We Must Fight Europe's Bid to Take Away Our Freedom.”
The text that followed stated: “A little more than 60 years ago Hitler planned to crush the British and force us into his new Nazi super-state. Napoleon Bonaparte had a similar plan a century earlier. This new threat from the EU to break Britain down into a series of five 'transnational' regions may not be made from the barrel of a gun, but it is equally unacceptable.”
The editorial concluded with these sobering words: “We have fought hard for our national identity and self respect. We must never give it away.”
Actually there are even greater reasons for Britain to maintain its national identity. Our Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples are descended from the patriarchs of Genesis and have from time to time played a significant historical role in the world beginning with the biblical accounts of the patriarchal fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.
(To understand both the history and the prophetic overtones for the future, request a free copy of the booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy . )
Can Britain meet this challenge?
Whether present-day Britain can rise to the occasion is an open question. Popular commentator Mark Steyn wrote on the Western Standard Web site: “At some point soon, we're going to be asking: Who lost Britain? In the weeks after last year's tube bombing [July 2005], I doubted that the clarion call for a reassertion of 'British identity' would last, and so it proved.
“By the first anniversary, Britain was back in its peculiarly resistant multicultural mush in which the proper reaction to such unfortunate events is to abase oneself even more abjectly before the gods of cultural relativism. What matters after mass slaughter on the Underground is not the wound to the nation, but the potential for hurt feelings of certain minorities” (Aug. 28, 2006).
While Mr. Steyn's commentary wasn't written specifically in reaction to the potential redrawing of the map of Europe and Britain, the stated principles have the same broad application as if it were.
Mr. Steyn went on to comment on Melanie Phillip's new book Londonistan (reviewed in the August 2006 issue of World News and Prophecy ). He called Britain “a husk of a nation in which darker forces have set up shop, and in which establishment complacency, hard-left multiculturalism and ever more Europeanized bureaucracy has made it all but impossible for the state to rouse itself” (ibid.).
Contemporary 20th-century history may also shed some light on this dilemma. Consider the following historical/prophetic scenario.
Churchill's warnings in the 1930s
After the British capitulation to Hitler's wishes at Munich, Churchill said to the House of Commons on Oct. 5, 1938: “And do not suppose that this [Munich] is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is the first sip—the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be offered to us year by year— unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour we arise and take our stand for freedom, as in the olden time.”
Earlier Adolf Hitler had written the following in Mein Kampf during his imprisonment in the 1920s: “When dealing with a nation which has lost all force of character owing to its having given way spontaneously, he will be entitled to expect that his fresh but piecemeal demands will not be considered worth resisting by the nation from which they are made” (quoted by Winston Churchill, Step by Step, p. 343, section originally published March 24, 1939).
Mark Steyn concluded his commentary with the astute observation that “the British government has a strategy for southern Iraq, but not for southern England.” Given this latest revelation of a revolutionary recasting of the map of Europe, his conclusions may prove highly prophetic.
Steyn continued: “Britain's language, culture, legal system and political tradition have been the greatest single force for good in shaping the modern world.” This assessment may be judged a bit too generous, but a core of basic truth is still there.
He continued: “But discarding its own inheritance and yoking its future to a Eutopian pseudo-federation has left it [Britain] constitutionally (in every sense) incapable of resisting the depredations of more motivated forces. Unless things change in a big way, there won't always be an England.”
Another commentator who helps us appreciate Churchill's genius is Richard Holmes. Mr. Holmes is, in the words of Mail on Sunday editor Max Hastings, “a supremely skilful military historian.” His Churchill series on BBC TV proved eye-opening and illuminating.
Mr. Holmes observed that “by the time Winston [Churchill] died [in January 1965] Britain had become a land in which such a man as he would never again find room to flourish, with a popular culture increasingly inimical to his values, and likely therefore not to notice or properly appreciate his achievements” ( In the Footsteps of Churchill, 2005, p. 347).
No more British leaders like Winston Churchill in time of serious national need? That's not a very comforting thought. The biblical prophet Isaiah said a time would come when God would take away the national heroes.
The problems we face today
The news has recently surfaced that “Labour [is] ready to surrender more power to Brussels” ( Daily Mail, Sept. 22, 2006). “Britain is poised to surrender to another EU grab of its sovereignty in a policy u-turn, this time on law and order. The government will today begin talks on transferring control of sentencing for serious crimes, court procedures and even the rights of crime suspects.” Are the principles of the Magna Carta in danger? They certainly seem so.
The editorial in that same edition of the Daily Mail firmly stated: “They never stop. They never give up. Though the EU constitution is supposedly dead, the federalists are still seeking to destroy the sovereignty of nation states.”
Real reasons exist as to why these dangers to Britain's identity and sovereignty have largely escaped the attention of most of the British public. There is a rational explanation as to why Britons have not given any sustained attention to the warnings of a small cadre of journalists who, in their turn, have been crying out about these dangers for many years.
In their recent book, authors Christopher Booker and Richard North targeted the basic reasons. They wrote in the preface: “The form of government it [the EU and its predecessors] created was unique because it was designed to place the nation states which belonged to it under a 'supranational' power, unaccountable to any electorate, ruling its citizens through the agency of each country's own national authorities.
“Although the nation states [of Europe] and their institutions of government remained outwardly intact, all these institutions from heads of states and parliaments to civil services and judicial systems, in reality became increasingly subject to the decisions and laws of the new power [now called the EU] that was above them all.
“It was because the system worked from behind the scenes through the familiar landscape of existing national institutions that so few people recognised the immense scale of the change which was taking place [in Europe]” ( The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? 2005, p. vii).
The Bible and Central Europe
If the Bible had nothing to say about end-time activities in Europe, this publication would most likely be silent as well. But both the Old Testament book of Daniel and the New Testament book of Revelation (especially when you put the two together) have a great deal to say about Europe at the time of the end. Note Daniel 2:40-43, Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation chapters 17 and 18 in particular.
Based on these prophecies, this publication has foretold for years that the time is coming when 10 leaders of core countries will give their sovereignty to a “beast” power for a short time. Revelation reveals that the whole world will be taken in by the coming final restoration of the ancient Roman Empire—backed by a miracle-working religious individual the Bible calls “the false prophet.” Today's secular concept of a separated church and state will be overcome and the two systems will for a short time join.
The whole story is clearly set out when you know and understand the prophetic information in our free booklets The Book of Revelation Unveiled , You Can Understand Bible Prophecy and Are We Living in the Time of the End? Copies are available in print or you may download them from our Web site at www.wnponline.org/booklets .
The prophetic implications of what is being planned in Europe and Britain are truly frightening. Bureaucrats in Brussels don't always realize the potential repercussions of their plans and edicts. They can have dire consequences in the future, especially under a more autocratic, federal EU. It could be very important for you to request or download those free booklets today.
Just as the Britain of ancient yesteryear was enslaved to Rome, so it appears that modern-day Britain may finally lose its national identity to a major power in Central Europe—perhaps even without the firing of a shot. The actual takeover may prove far more subtle and treacherous than a military conquest. WNP

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Three overturns

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Three overturns

But couldn’t the throne have been transferred elsewhere for a long time before being transferred to the British Isles? The indirect answer from prophecy seems to be no.

In Ezekiel:21:26-27, God declared that Zedekiah was to "remove the diadem and take off the crown: This shall not be the same [a change or transfer was occurring]; exalt him that is low [the Zarhite ruler in Israel] and abase him that is high [Zedekiah of the line of Perez]. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, that is, the throne]; and it shall be no more [overturned] until HE come whose right it is; and I will give it HIM [Christ]" (KJV).
Notice that the final "overturned" was added in brackets for the sake of clarity. Some see this verse as a prophecy of the overthrow of the crown—that it would "be no more" (meaning no longer exist) until Christ came to claim it. Yet this cannot be the meaning of this prophecy or God would be breaking His unbreakable promise to David of an unbreakable dynasty. So the overturning must refer to removing the throne from one nation and raising it up in another. And the mentioning of overturn three times would certainly seem to be saying that such overturning would occur three times—that three times the throne would be transferred to another nation and that it wouldn’t be transferred again until Jesus Christ’s coming in power and glory to take it over.
When was the last time another country’s monarchy was transplanted into the throne’s present location in England? The answer is 1603, when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of Great Britain (the one who commissioned the King James Bible). This is obviously the last overturn to have taken place. Because of it, today’s British monarchs are of Scottish royal descent.
Prior to that, was another country’s throne ever transplanted into Scotland? Yes. The throne of the Scoti (as the Irish were anciently called) was moved from Ireland into southwest Scotland in the late fifth century—their kingdom of Dalriada in that area, centered at Iona (a name perhaps related to Ionia of Greece), eventually growing to envelop what is now Scotland. This was clearly the previous overturn—which is why Scotland’s monarchy, which became Britain’s monarchy, was actually Irish.
Now since these were the last two overturns of three, there can only have been one other—the first. And that first overturn had to have been the transfer of the throne from Judah. Thus it should be clear that this transfer must have been from Judah to Ireland. Had the throne been transferred from Judah to some other country before later being reestablished in Ireland, that would add a fourth overturn—when Scripture appears to allow for only three. By simple deduction, the three overturns must have been: 1) Judah to Ireland; 2) Ireland to Scotland; 3) Scotland to England.
It should be mentioned, though, that in the first overturn it is possible that the daughter of Zedekiah married into the Milesian Zerah line in Spain or elsewhere around the time it was in the process of assuming control over Ireland. This would not be adding another overturn from Spain to Ireland, as it would all be part of the same overturn. Whether or not this happened, however, is dependent on exactly when the Milesians from Spain took over Ireland, which is not entirely clear. They may have already become established in Ireland before Jeremiah’s journey—though perhaps still maintaining control over part of Spain when he arrived. Again, however, it is possible that Zedekiah’s daughter and Jeremiah actually accompanied the Milesians in their invasion of Ireland from Spain.

You are viewing a page from

The greatest and most enduring dynasty in world history is showing signs of passing. But will it? To understand the future of the British royal family, we must examine how the monarchy began—and why.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Why the Scottish Vote For Independence Matters

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Why the Scottish Vote For Independence Matters

by Darris McNeely

Lost in all the fear and concern over what the United States will do about the growing threat in the Middle East from ISIS is next week’s vote on Scottish independence. This historic vote, set for September 18, is off the radar of most Americans. It’s likely only a few within the Washington policy establishment are watching it with any idea what is at stake. While the growing threat from another terrorist group has grabbed our attention this little watched issue could impact the effectiveness of any response to this new danger.
The United Kingdom, which has for 307 years included Scotland, is in danger of breaking up. Polls show a growing support for a “Yes” vote next week to take Scotland out of the union and on its own. With Scotland out of the Union, Great Britain would definitely be downgraded as a lending nation. The impact of such a step is virtually unknown. Much would change. A new flag would have to designed. Wales and Ireland would no doubt reconsider their status. Would they too desire to leave the Union? Britain left alone would be exposed as a diverse nation, shorn of its last vestige of glory with only grey hairs exposed. It would not be a pretty sight.
At stake is the existing status of Great Britain as an effective power in the world. America and the UK have had a long standing "Special Relationship” that has greatly benefited the world. Eleven years ago as the United States formed a coalition to go into Iraq it was Great Britain who provided key military and political support. Now, as America looks like it will have to ramp up another major military effort in the region, its key ally faces a possible breakup of it’s essential political and cultural basis. Anything that changes or weakens Great Britain’s standing among the nations impacts America. The Special Relationship would indeed be weakened.
Britain’s nuclear capability is stationed on Scottish soil. This nuclear deterrent is part of the key to its viability as a partner in NATO. If Scotland secedes from the union what does England do with its nukes? With a weakened political profile what kind of military power will Great Britain be able to project? Scotland’s men and women have played key historic roles as part of England’s military during this period of unity. Anything that weakens Britain’s military standing weakens America and by extension it weakens NATO. Make no mistake Russia’s Vladimir Putin is carefully watching this vote as he probes the resolve of Western Europe over Ukraine.
All this comes at a critical moment in world events. The Middle East is going through historic changes. The Syria and Iraq border has been redrawn by the emergence of ISIS, a virtual autonomous Islamic state which has proclaimed itself as a resorted Caliphate within the region. Whether this new group will remain in place or be replaced or reduced to a minor role is yet to be seen. Their presence and actions have everyone’s attention. How Europe, America and Asia handle this development is important. No one is served in the long term by a barbaric Islamist terror state within this volatile region.
Add to the mix the crisis in Ukraine. Russian leader Putin has invaded a sovereign nation's lands and violated an international border. No European nation will respond forcefully enough to restore Ukraine’s former borders. Indeed, whether or not Ukraine itself will muster the courage to resist this invasion, clean up its own political house and assert its rights as a nation are yet to be determined. Corrupted leadership exists within these nations and those who will suffer most are the people in the streets.
The Scottish vote next week matters when it is considered against the larger stage of current world events. The world order is being shaped by major events. If Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom and breaks up an important centuries old union then other, unintended things could happen. As small an event as this seems it is not occurring in a vacuum.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Is the British Union in Danger?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632.

Is the British Union in Danger?

article by John Ross Schroeder

Historically during the last 300 years the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has suffered only relatively minor threats to its unified existence. Even the 1997 decision to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly was probably taken with the hope of mollifying and even diminishing nationalistic movements. Now a major threat to the union of England and Scotland is just over the horizon. What does it mean for the English-speaking peoples?

Although civilization in the British Isles is thought to reach back well over two millennia, Great Britain itself has only been in existence for 300 years. The historic date is 1707, the year the Parliament of Great Britain met for the first time. Forty-five Scottish MPs (members of Parliament) and 16 peers joined this new Parliament in Westminster.

A United Kingdom had been founded and established. It was the capital event of that era. The benchmark treaty itself was termed "the Act of Union." The newly formed Great Britain would be ruled by a parliament at Westminster under a single royal crown.

Major points about the merger

But why did the two countries join together? Although the corollary causes are considerable, the root cause was economic. Scotland's economy was insubstantial at the time.

British historian Norman Davies has studied, researched and written on the merging of the two countries and has summarized his thoughts in a book titled simply, The Isles: A History.

He stated: "The English Bill of Union (1706) was prepared unilaterally as a document which the Scots could either take or leave. It was presented at a moment when the bargaining power of the Scots was weak; and it was accompanied by the promise of a very large sum of money" (2001, pp. 523-524).

Christopher Whatley, professor of Scottish history at Dundee University, has stated: "There was undoubtedly a very strong economic dimension to the Union."

It should be noted here, however, that Scotland retained its legal system, universities, local town charters and the Kirk (the Presbyterian Church)—and much of its distinctive culture (as it does to this day).

Foreign policy issues were also a major consideration. The Act of Union was also an English ploy to keep France out of the business and influence of the British Isles. According to the late author Magnus Magnusson's Scotland: the Story of a Nation, "The major preoccupations of Queen Anne's reign were national unity (through the 1707 Act of Union) and the War of the Spanish Succession against France (1702-1707)" (p. 540).

Winston Churchill's great ancestor, the duke of Marlborough (Lord John Churchill), won major European military battles at various points in 1704, 1706, 1708 and 1709.

The long road to eventual British Union between England and Scotland had been preceded by many ups and downs. Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell actually annexed Scotland, but that came to nothing when the English monarchy was restored. The Scottish Parliament would occasionally pass provocative legislation like the Wine Act, which allowed for the importation of French wines, ignoring the English trade embargo against the French.

Naturally, Louis XIV of France supported Scotland in its disagreements with England and at one point had even hinted at a potential invasion. As Magnus Magnusson observed, "Scotland, in English eyes, was now endangering England's national security in the War of the Spanish Succession against France" (ibid., p. 545). After all, the duke of Marlborough required many Scottish soldiers to help England in its battles with the French. The need for political union became paramount.

Queen Anne herself spoke favorably of the Act of Union in a public speech from her throne. She said: "I consider the Union as a matter of the greatest importance to the wealth, strength and safety of the whole [British] island..." (ibid, p. 528). Notice that she mentioned wealth first.

The queen's assessment has proven very true. Scotland's economic fortunes soon improved and the new nation would for a time constitute the largest free trade area in Western Europe. As Harvard historian Niall Ferguson has pointed out, "Now Scotland's surplus entrepreneurship, medics and musketeers could employ their skills and energies even further afield in the service of English capital and under the protection of England's navy" ( Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, 2004, p. 40).

A benchmark merger

As Norman Davies relates: "[Queen Anne] was no longer 'Queen of England' and 'Queen of Scotland', but 'Queen of Great Britain' in both substance and style... On 29 April, 1707, the Queen issued a proclamation requesting Parliament to reassemble in its new form and under its new title [the Parliament of Great Britain]. Two days later, on 1 May, 1707, the new Parliament assembled. That was the day to which the British state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain started to function. It was the day when modern British history began" ( The Isles: A History, p. 528).

There is no question that England could never have attained its glory days of empire without a unified, basically cooperative England and Scotland. Nor could the United States of America ever have reached its zenith with divided nations of North and South. At least initially, Abraham Lincoln saw the preservation of the American union as the primary purpose for the North going to war over southern secession (1861-1865). Slavery became more and more important as the war progressed.

On a personal note, I resided in the United States for the first 40 years of my life. Married to a British subject, I have lived in Britain for over 30 years and have developed a great love for the whole of the British Isles—including England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland (both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland), the Isles of Man and Wight, etc. This love affair with the British Isles began not long after I first touched down at Heathrow in July of 1976 on a combined business and holiday trip. After only two weeks, I wanted to live in Great Britain. My wife, Jan, was in total agreement.

I normally travel by train from London to Edinburgh once or twice a year on assignment. One of my early ancestors on my mother's side was Jonathan Hill of Edinburgh. The thought that Scotland, after a time, might no longer be a part of the United Kingdom troubles me greatly.

Instead of a celebration

The magnificent achievements of Great Britain have often been celebrated in both book and film. One would think that such a successful 300-year union would be a cause for multiple national celebrations this very year. But such is not the case. Instead, many voices in Scotland are calling for national independence. Even some English citizens think that the Scots should leave the United Kingdom.

The issue hit the front pages earlier this year when the Scottish National Party (SNP) for the first time gained more votes than the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament. Alex Salmond of the SNP is now first minister. He has promised Scots a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom in 2010.

Both the outgoing prime minister, Tony Blair (whose grandfather lived in Glasgow), and the incoming prime minister, Gordon Brown (a Scot), have gone out of their way to support the preservation of the English-Scottish union as a paramount rearguard action. Both have spoken and written very much in favor of retaining the union.

In the interests of the strength of unity, what took so long to bring together should not be allowed to come apart. As Magnus Magnusson commented, "For nearly three centuries, commentators and partisans have argued passionately about the 1707 Union of Parliaments. Was it the ultimate betrayal of the Scottish nation? An altrustic act of far-sighted statesmanship? Or simply a pragmatic response to the inevitable?" ( Scotland: the Story of a Nation, p. 554).

Or was the union in the providence and plan of God? Was the hand of God behind the scenes?

The historic and prophetic meaning

First Great Britain and then the United States of America played major roles in the world during the last 200 years. If the 19th century was the British century, the 20th was an American century. The meteoric rise to power and influence of these two great powers was prophesied in the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Both nations are basically descended from the patriarch Joseph of the book of Genesis.

But Holy Scripture has also predicted that severe threats to their national well-being would surface if they disobeyed and rejected their Creator God. The United Church of God has prepared and published a special free booklet that traces the origins of the English-speaking peoples, as well as summarizes in some detail their prophetic fortunes in the future.

Please request or download The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy . Without the knowledge set forth in this free booklet, you cannot really understand what is happening in our world or where it is headed. WNP

.

United Church of God El Paso

Friday, May 8, 2015

Nimrod & Semiramis

Grandad & Nanna's Bible Story - Chapter 6

by Ken Murray Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

A Page on the World

Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Great Britain off the Map of Europe?

Great Britain off the Map of Europe?

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Three overturns

Three overturns

But couldn’t the throne have been transferred elsewhere for a long time before being transferred to the British Isles? The indirect answer from prophecy seems to be no.

Contents

You are viewing a page from

Friday, September 12, 2014

Why the Scottish Vote For Independence Matters

Why the Scottish Vote For Independence Matters

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Is the British Union in Danger?

My Blog List

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

My Blog List

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, May 8, 2015

by Ken Murray Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Login or Create an Account

Thursday, May 7, 2015

A Page on the World

Login or Create an Account

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Login or Create an Account

Thursday, September 18, 2014

But couldn’t the throne have been transferred elsewhere for a long time before being transferred to the British Isles? The indirect answer from prophecy seems to be no.

Contents

You are viewing a page from

Friday, September 12, 2014

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

My Blog List

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

My Blog List

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me