Andrew wrote:

There are a few good points here, although the topic was initiated at Skyscript soon 3 years and it seems a pity that the members should not be able to discuss the topic further or that Mark should be quarentined almost until the issue is voted for and decided. The matter of Scottish independence is a running discussion and I wonder, upon discression, whether the two forums should be seen as two separate things.

Hello Andrew,

I am not clear what you mean about 'two forums' here. The issue of whether my article eventually goes up up on Skyscript is a completely different matter to any ongoing discussion taking place on this thread. I do take your point that if/when it appears on Skyscript later its likely to be of purely historical interest. This is a hot topic until September and after that will be effectively 'yesterday's news'.

However, while I am not posting for a while there is absolutely nothing to stop others members discussing the issue here. I would encourage them to do so!

I do regret not being to able participate actively here for a few months. However, I came to the conclusion recently that the astrological community only seems to have respect for those that set their ideas out in writing. You can knock yourself with original research on threads here but this is seldom even noticed outside the small world of Skyscript members. That is undoubtably unfair but its the hard reality as I see it. As someone located outside the small coterie of UK astrology (focused on London and the south) I think this a good opportunity to get my mundane ideas out there to the wider astrological community.

Mark

I'm glad to hear that; I've felt for a while that you should write more formally. Its important to get the balance right when investing energies in internet forums. I think the skyscript forum is great as a scratchboard for ideas, and valuable for allowing points to be refined by helpful contributions and constructive criticisms. But something important definitely needs formal publication, and you don't want your contributions here to detract from the time you need for that.

I agree to the line as expressed above
but hope you agree it is a point worthy of discussion.

While I in no way have put the most effort into following the details of this discussion, my personal take on the matter is that Scotland will go for independence due to the Pluto line in the chart posted on March 9. 2013 (among other things), but also adding the solar eclipse of October 23. 2014 as a possible significator. Venus disposes the Moon's South node and is entering cazimi (the Heart of the Sun) and this I interpret as may 'short-cut' or cause a reorganizing of the Crown.

2014 aries ingress chart to edinburgh.


free photo hosting

which leads us to the cancer ingress chart to edinburgh.


img host


the election happens on sept 18th, so i think one would use the cancer ingress as the aries ingress doesn't have a fixed sign on the ascendant. i think that is how bonatti pursued mundane astrology as i understand it.

the cancer ingress has a fairly contentious vibe to it with mars/moon opposition across the 2nd/8th house. i suppose this pulls in pluto,uranus and the sun if you want to just use whole signs and outer planets. a power struggle of sorts seems to be implied in all of it. financial concerns the public might have over the thought of scottish independence might be implied in this opposition as well.

16 degree virgo rises in both charts. this is the degree of venus in the election date sept 18th. in both charts mercury is in a weakened state relative to the descendant ruler jupiter. i am not sure who is represented by which here.. powers that be are ascendant, opposition is descendant.. does this read as uk is represented by the ascendant but the scottish independence is represented by the descendant? mercury and jupiter rule the midheaven axis as well.. the moon applies to jupiter first before mercury in this 2014 cancer ingress chart.

here is the cancer ingress on a 45 degree wheel highlighting midpoints in the 8th or 16th harmonic. sun at the mercury/saturn midpoint - thoughts of separation, shrouded in the clouds of neptune.. this suggests there is a lot of uncertainty and lack of definition in what all of this means.. i suppose this is like reading tea leaves.. some might be better at it then others.. that is about as much as i can get off the chart below! the 45 degree wheel shows the 22.30 aspect as an opposition.. thus neptune at 7 mutable 33 is approx 22 1/2 degrees from 0 cardinal. mercury/saturn midpoint is 7 virgo 31, so same deal..


upload imagem



perhaps some others have some thoughts on how the cancer ingress tells us something about the upcoming election on scottish independence..

James_M wrote:

in both charts. this is the degree of venus in the election date sept 18th. in both charts mercury is in a weakened state relative to the descendant ruler jupiter. i am not sure who is represented by which here.. powers that be are ascendant, opposition is descendant.. does this read as uk is represented by the ascendant but the scottish independence is represented by the descendant?

Hi James,

I have avoided discussing the ingress charts in my forthcoming article on Scotland in the UK Astrological Journal. Partly it was just a space issue. With two Scottish national charts, two UK charts, several nativities and an SNP party chart to look at I had enough on my plate.

Just to say in Ingress charts its normal to consider the ASC as representative of the people.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ingresses.html

However, your confusion on who is represents the government in these charts is fully understandable. There is a Scottish government based in Edinburgh with devolved powers to legislate , raise taxes etc. So should it or the UK government be Lord 10?

Plus the charts located for Edinburgh and London are not that different. So if we choose the Scottish government for lord 10 in the Edinburgh chart it will also be representing the UK government in a London based chart!

For these reasons it probably makes most sense to assign Lord 10 to the UK government in both charts. The 4th house represents the government's political opponents. In this instance the Yes Campaign working towards independence at the forthcoming election. This campaign includes not just the Scottish National Party, but also the Scottish Green party, Scottish Socialist party, and some disaffected Labour party supporters. There are also pro-independence supporters not affiliated to any political party.

Another question is whether we should consider just the Aries ingress or the Cancer ingress too? Some traditional sources indicate when a cardinal sign rises in the Aries ingress we should look at all 4 ingress charts. With a mutable sign we should look at the Aries and Libra ingress only. While with a fixed sign rising at the Aries ingress only.

My personal experience tends to be somewhat at odds with this rather rigid outlook. I have found that each quarter is always worth studying. A good example of this was the ingress charts for the Australian Federal elections in 2010. Despite a fixed sign rising in the Aries ingress, the Cancer ingress prior to the election provided very useful supplementary information on the likely fate of the incumbent Labor Government.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5520

Unfortunately, I sought to predict that election outcome based on the Aries ingress alone. Nevertheless, that election taught me a valuable lesson.

James_M wrote:

16 degree Virgo rises in both charts. this is the degree of venus in the election date sept 18th.

Incidentally, the Full Moon prior to the Scottish Referendum is on 16 Virgo-Pisces so it sits right across the ASC-DESC angles of the ingress charts. Perfect symbolism for an issue that divides the people of Scotland.

Mark

Mark wrote: There is a Scottish government based in Edinburgh with devolved powers to legislate , raise taxes etc. So should it or the UK government be Lord 10?

In which respect, it is interesting to note that the MC is in Gemini, a double-bodied sign.

Geoffrey wrote:
In which respect, it is interesting to note that the MC is in Gemini, a double-bodied sign.

Perhaps this indicates the ambiguity of Scotland. Scotland is voting to become a separate country but it already is. Whilst the Assembly in Edinburgh is relatively new Scotland has always had its own law and United Kingdom means just that. Two kingdoms that happen to have the same monarch (but what do I, a Sassenach know?)

By casting a chart for Scotland are we not putting the cart before the horse? The new separate Scotland does not yet exist so we cannot do an ingress chart yet.

Perhaps the emphasis should be on the UK chart for London. I do not have Bonatti with me but they must have something equivalent in the ultramontane kingdoms where he lived

Matthew

Mjacob wrote:Whilst the Assembly in Edinburgh is relatively new Scotland has always had its own law and United Kingdom means just that. Two kingdoms that happen to have the same monarch (but what do I, a Sassenach know?)

This is also interesting in light of the question and discussion whether Prince Charles ever would be King of the United Kingdom. This has been debated from several angles, but in fact - the United Kingdom may not stand as it has done up until today.

mark,

thanks for sharing your overview on the ingress charts and what they might imply here. i think the cancer ingress needs to be considered. i don't know about the rule of fixed rising - aries only ingress either, but we have mutable rising in the aries ingress which is said to only last until the cancer ingress.. what are your thoughts on which planet is stronger in the charts - mercury or jupiter, or the idea if the ascendant represents the people and the ruler of the ascendant and the 10th happen to be both mercury? mercury is weak in the aries ingress chart, more so then in the cancer ingress chart as i read it. what do you take the application of the moon to the square of jupiter in the cancer ingress and wouldn't the moon be the obvious planet to symbolize the people generally?

matthew - as mark points out, the difference between the ingress charts for edinburgh and london is very small (about 1 degree to be exact -ascendant 17 virgo instead of 16 virgo).. as i understand it one can cast an ingress chart for anywhere they want, regardless of where the political power resides. i don't know if an ingress chart to ottawa would shed much light on the events of the westcoast of canada as the charts will be very different. in this example - they are very similar.

andrew - good point!

Mjacob wrote:

Perhaps this indicates the ambiguity of Scotland. Scotland is voting to become a separate country but it already is. Whilst the Assembly in Edinburgh is relatively new Scotland has always had its own law and United Kingdom means just that. Two kingdoms that happen to have the same monarch (but what do I, a Sassenach know?)

Scotland has always retained a degree of distinctiveness within the Union. As you point out when Scotland and England united in 1707 it was agreed Scotland would retain its own legal system, education system and Church.

Culturally too as a 'home nation' Scotland has its own Football, Rugby, Athletics Association etc. Scottish Banks can also issue their own Bank notes.

The Scottish Parliament has added to this Scottish particularism since it now has powers over much of domestic policy. However, there is a clear distinction between devolved and reserved powers.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visit ... 25488.aspx

Devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament include:

-agriculture, forestry and fisheries
-education and training
-environment
-health and social services
-housing
-law and order
-local government
-sport and the arts
-tourism and economic development
-many aspects of transport

Reserved powers retained by the UK parliament are:

-benefits and social security
-immigration
-defence
-foreign policy
-employment
-broadcasting
-trade and industry
-nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity
-consumer rights
-data protection
-the Constitution

In theory the Scottish parliament has tax raising powers but it has never really exercised these and its funding is still essentially a block of funding decided by the UK government. So while we can describe Scotland in the loosest sense as a 'country' it is clearly not a separate state in the strict political sense.

Mjacob wrote:

By casting a chart for Scotland are we not putting the cart before the horse? The new separate Scotland does not yet exist so we cannot do an ingress chart yet.

Aren't you rather trying to have your cake and eat it here Matthew? lol
First you state Scotland is separate country but now you state it cannot have its own chart?

Scotland does exist as a recognised political entity within the UK. The referendum is only taking place there. I have seen ingress charts using issues specific to US states so why not here? Still, in practical terms the ingress charts located for Edinburgh and London are little different.

Mjacob wrote:

Perhaps the emphasis should be on the UK chart for London. I do not have Bonatti with me but they must have something equivalent in the ultramontane kingdoms where he lived.

I favour a London based chart not because of the non-viability of a Scottish one but because it removes any debate on who is Lord 10. Although in Scotland that is precisely the issue at stake so Geoffrey's comment about a double -bodied sign on the MC is telling for both charts.

Mark

Mjacob wrote:

Two kingdoms that happen to have the same monarch (but what do I, a Sassenach know?)

Well as a Albannach myself I should point out we have been one united kingdom for over 300 years.

Actually, creating one kingdom was probably the main reason the English had for wanting to create a political union with Scotland in 1707. The plan was that by Scotland adopting the Act of Settlement the possibility of a Roman Catholic being a British monarch again would be permanently removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

The Highland Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 tried to overturn that idea and return a Catholic Stewart monarch to the British throne. Ultimately, though that cause was defeated at the battle of Culloden in 1746.

To this day a Roman Catholic cannot be crowned British monarch or be married to one due to the Act of Settlement. Its obviously a total anachronism today. However, if this act was abolished it would remove the British monarch as head of the Church of England and this would then probably require disestablishment of the COE.

But yes if Scotland votes for independence Great Britain will no longer be one Kingdom. The SNP have not proposed Scotland becoming a republic but rather retaining the monarch as head of state like other commonwealth realms such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm

Alex Salmond, the SNP leader and Scottish First minister is a clever political operator and is very well aware that taking on the issue of independence is a big enough hurdle without also raising the topic of a republic!

Mark