Talk:Scottish Militia Bill

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

If this is the bill Anne vetoed, then (a) why it called "Militia Act 1707" instead of Bill. Also, why does List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1707-1799 link to it, and give it a chapter number, no less?!

I think this is a different act to the bill that Anne vetoed. Morwen - Talk 11:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The name of the article must be wrong, but I am not sure what it should be.

--KURANDO 11:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky. Bills and acts didn't have short names back then. Whilst most acts have been retrospectively given short names, and we use those, obviously this didn't happen with bills. Morwen - Talk 12:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So.. what in the world did this act do? File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

last/latest[edit]

Propose change of "It was the last bill passed by both Houses ever to be refused royal assent." to "It is the latest bill passed by both Houses to be refused royal assent."

Unless I am mistaken, the power to refuse RA still remains with the current monarch? 85.227.226.168 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but they'd never dare use it except in very extreme circumstances that are unlikely to arise. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, it was good English to use 'last' to mean 'most recent'. Let's keep to clear, normal language in the article.Earthlyreason (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1707 or 1708[edit]

Some documents, including at the UK Parliament site, give the date of the bill as 1707, not 1708. But this is simply a matter of the parliamentary year, to 25 March, being labelled '1707'. So let's not be confused by it. Keep 1708 as the date. (see here).

This has confused me. Before about ten years ago, every source on google scholar seemed to say 1707; that indeed is what I had always understood. J Waldron (2005-2006) Fordham Law Review says it's 1708, and cites "Queen Anne's veto is recorded as "La Reine se avisera" in 18 H.L. Jour. 506 (1708)." Does anyone know more about this or any other sources? Wik idea 17:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]