Example Codicil Form: Fill & Download for Free

The Republican Party was fundamentally founded as an opposition to slavery in the 1850’s - it’s no surprise that it supported equality for Blacks. However, there’s an important codicil - virtually every White American in 1900 was perhaps in some way prejudiced. Many Northern White Americans may never have even seen an African-American, so this “equality” was a very abstract thing. African-Americans have been subjected to injustice for a very long time.The predominantly Republican North wanted Blacks to have equality, most likely as long as they stayed in the South. That’s not universal, there were African-Americans in the North, but in very small numbers - in 1900, the African-American population of the Northeast was 1.8% and in the Midwest it was 1.9%, while in the South it was 32.3% (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html)At the same time, the quota system for US immigration was heavily weighted to favor immigration from Northern and Western Europe. Many, many Republicans were Protestants (because most Americans were Protestant - in 1900, only 13% of the population was Roman Catholic), and favored immigration from mostly Protestant countries and/or “original” countries (those countries of established settlers), such as Germany, Britain, Ireland or France. Many Italians, for example, immigrated to the US prior to the establishment of the quota that was heavily weighted against Southern Europe.When looked at from the standpoint of 21st Century egalitarianism, this seems unfair, and was considered so in 1965 when the quota system was abandoned, however at the time (1900), it was considered perfectly natural. It’s actually the cities that are “melting pots”, rural communities tended to be far more concerned about having neighbors that were like them. In 1900, the US was only 39.6% urban, whereas today (2010 Census) the percentage is 80.7%.Much of the colonization of the US was by religious groups, and many towns were formed by members of a specific religious community - it’s hardly surprising that Americans would have wanted to maintain their religious and cultural traditions in their small communities at a time when people regarded “foreigners” as being just about everyone that wasn’t like them.

What would be the sticking points in the divorce bill with the UK, should Scotland become independent?Most of the answers and comments on these pages are points of discussion, not necessarily "sticking points" In reality there is only one "sticking point" but it IS a big one. It all depends on how reasonable rUK want to be. Thank-you to Mr Calvert for his list of talking points.There are a couple of points to remember.a. A smaller unit which secedes from a larger unit carries no responsibilities. These responsibilities are retained by the larger unit. This does not mean that there are no moral responsibilities.b. If Brexit has taught us anything, it is to get your ducks in a row during the negotiation period and implement them in a timely fashion.1. What determines who is Scottish? The standard definition would be anyone born in Scotland plus anyone who takes nationality through choice as in any other country.2. Who pays pensions/benefits of Scots living in England and English in Scotland? The UK pensions would pay for anyone who has contributed to the UK pension pot during their lifetime. This is already standard for Britons living abroad. A Scottish pension fund would be set up and a proportional mixed system instigated. Details by negotiations.3. Will there be a common travel area and cross border travel arrangements?This already exists for Ireland. Makes no sense to change it.4. Working rights post-independence e.g. will Scots be allowed to work in rUK and vice-versa? Same as working in any other foreign country but this could be made easier by sensible negotiation. Workers rights are another issue as Brexit was designed to reduce British worker's rights. Scotland (as it wishes to rejoin the EU) would stick to European standards.5. Share of the national debt and how is it paid for? See point 1. The national debt was incurred by the UK, Scotland would not be in the UK so the debt remains with the rUK. However, morally Scotland should contribute a proportion. Called compensatory payments, this would be by negotiation and while the UK cannot insist on any given figure it gives Scotland a high value card to play in said negotiations.6. Will Royal Mail deliver to Scotland e.g. will it be broken up or will Scotland be viewed as a foreign country? Does it matter who puts a letter through your door? How many people send letters anyway. Why not "Royal Mail Scotland"? There is no thought to abandon the Queen as Head of State. Scotland might even apply to join the Commonwealth.7. Transition period. Yes, negotiable at outset.8. NATO obligations See point 1. Nato obligations rest with UK until such times as Scotland joins.9. Siting of Trident This is the big one and potentially a real "Sticking point". The current thinking is that Faslane should be rented back to the UK until Trident has reached the end of its working life, around 2030, This would give rUK time to build a new base. But Faslane is only half the problem. There is a hollow mountain in the area, called Coulport, which actually houses the warheads and this is much harder to replicate elsewhere. The SNP want nuclear weapons out of Scotland but post independence there is no guarantee that they would still form the government so a different solution might be possible.10. Terms of the referendum e.g. will Shetland and Borders be allowed separate votes? This is a dilemma for the Islands. Maybe they should have the decision. There is talk that they would become "Crown Dependencies" like Jersey or the Isle of Man but most politicians think that this is the least likely option. Firstly some say that they would lose the oilfields as their sea limit would be 12 mile and not the 200 miles of the mainland and apparently there is very little oil in that sector. Secondly they were the most anti-independence region of Scotland and if they decided not to vote then the odds FOR independence go up.11. What happens to bank deposits in Scottish branches e.g. will they be automatically converted to new Scottish currency? The current thinking is no, they would not be automatically converted. However tax would be demanded, bills paid and benefits paid in the new currency and so bit by bit the currency would be changed.12. Use of overseas Embassies. By arrangement but not necessarily English Embassies. Could be France, or the US. England doesn't have the pull it once had and is toxic to many countries.13. Split of armed forces e.g. what goes where? Not as big a deal as other answers suggest. Scotland would be entitled to 8% of all defence forces but that could be given in cash or equivalent value. No disruption to UK military forces at all. No personnel need be relocated. Scotland's defence contribution is currently £3.2Bn soon to rise to £4Bn pa. if BJ's announced defence plans come into force. Several military experts suggest that Scotland could have a very capable Defence Force for £2-2.5Bn. A net saving of £800-1500m pa. No nuclear weapons, no fancy aircraft carriers or other "big ticket" assets. Units could participate in peace-keeping operations throughout the world paid for by the UN with good bonuses for the troops. I reject the idea that people join the army just to kill people.This carries an additional value. rUK will obviously stop orders to the Clyde but naval assets will be needed and so give job security to the yards for decades to come. Scottish forces would also pay tax in Scotland.14. Customs arrangements e.g. transiting rights for goods landed in England or Wales for shipping to Scotland and vice-versa. Perhaps a "sticking point" here in the long term if Scotland joins the EU but short term by negotiation. Brexit proves the wisdom of sorting this out BEFORE parting company.15. NHS eg will Scots be able to use rUK for non-emergency treatment and vice-versa, or will they have to pay? Just like any foreign country, if you need treatment it would be covered by travel insurance (probably as a permanent codicil to other policies) Again, by negotiation, this could be made easy.16. Setting up of own government functions e.g. tax, pensions, benefits, health etc, if currently run from UK. How long given to set up own ministries? Not long. Tax, for example, is still collected by HMRC but Scotland already has basic infrastructure to deal with the existing different tax rates etc. Some benefits are already devolved, health is totally devolved. Other departments such as DVLA would need to be set up but this carries an advantage. At present DVLA (and others) are proportionally charged to Scotland but all the tax paid by the employees are paid in the UK so there would be more tax paid in Scotland. Equally for departments that occupy horrendously expensive London offices ( also charged to Scotland) they would become more cost effective.17. In disputes between the two countries, who/where arbitrates? Again, by negotiation, probably not the ECJ which would be unacceptable to rUK but a neutral (or joint) court.

Most of the indigenous people were converted by the sword. But their versions of Christianity can be extremely syncretistic, maintaining many of their own traditions. The firecrackers at the canonical hours, for example, are fine at Prime and Terce and Nones and Compline and Vespers, but at Matins they’re a real pain in the ass, ha ha.But the Mayans were never quite conquered, in their mountain jungles. They even had their own country up through the 1930s, when the British discovered oil in Honduras, and all of a sudden Mexico took a larger interest in Tabasco and the Yucatan. The Zapatista uprising was due to a codicil in NAFTA that said the U.S. could exploit the part of the country that was The Mayan Free State at the time the Mexican constitution was drafted, because technically they did not enjoy the constitutional protections the rest of the country did.In any case, there is probably a certain percentage of Mayans who never converted. Queretaro, where I live, has the highest number of Aztecs in the country (about 12,000), and they come stomping in from the hills every full moon, in loin cloths and breast plates and betel-nut anklets, to dance in front of the monastery or Franciscan church. There are Nahuatls up by the Copper Canyon who seem pretty, well, indigenous. And down in Oaxaca there are Zapotecs who seem pretty darn Zapotec.Now, 99 percent of them might profess to be Catholic, if asked — because that’s sort of important in Mexico, unless you’re an obvious Jew or Muslim or Hindu. Lots of stores and homes have little bumper stickers on the door saying “Somos Catolicos — no se solicita Los Evangelistas” (basically, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists and Mormons can bugger off, we’re not interested). I actually worked for a Methodist charity that could not for the life of them raise enough money to fund the orphans they were taking in from the Drug War, because, well, Methodist.But while you see hookers by the dozen going into the churches for Sunday Mass, crossing themselves, dressed in black lace, I almost never see the indigenous at Mass (I’m an ex-Catholic, but I occasionally attend with friends, to be sociable). So I bet a lot of them may call themselves Catholic, but they aren’t. And the more sophisticated and educated ones are probably rejecting Catholicism as an imposed form of oppression.