Re-reading your rather confused comments I see that you have made some other errors, the most obvious of which are:

1. "There are also millions of British People (and proud of it) who live in Northern Ireland."
Millions? Hard to see how in a country with a population of 1.8 million.

2. "most the British people in Northern Ireland had ancestors who emigrated there from Scotland long ago"
Most? About 40% of the population are Catholics and highly unlikely to be descendents of the Protestant Scots who settled in Ireland.

3. "the acts of the the British House of Commons are the Supreme Law of the Land"
There is no such thing as an 'act of the British House of Commons'. Statutory laws are Acts of one of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom or the Welsh Assembly. In addition much of the law of each of the countries in the UK is derived from common law and not from Acts of Parliament. As an example, there is no Act of Parliament making murder an offence, nevertheless it is an offence at comon law.

I'm not sure why you presume that I don't know the constitution and laws of my own country. Scottish law and English law are two separate legal systems (and always have been) and Northern Ireland has been a separate jurisdiction since 1921 (the year of Irish partition). A police officer from England and Wales has no powers in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, nor do police officers from those countries have powers in England and Wales

The Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments can legislate on matters including: agriculture, fisheries and forestry, economic development, education, environment, food standards, health, home affairs, local government, sport and the arts, transport, training, tourism, research and statistics, and social work. The Scottish Parliament can also legislate on Scots law, and has the ability to alter income tax in Scotland by up to 3 pence in the pound.

The United kingdom consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Other persons with notional British citizenship (but not necessarily all of the benefits of British membership of the EU) include citizens of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (Crown Dependencies). Citizens of the Falkland Islands and 13 other British Overseas Territories have British Overseas Territories Citizenship.

As for where British people live - well, just about everywhere in the world.

As always you miss (deliberately?) my point. NORAD is concerned with threats to the US and Canada, primarily, and my point was about its role in dealing with an attack on a sovereign state whose head of state is Queen Elizabeth.

I also note that you ignored my question about smoke bombs.

Lastly, you have a tendency to proffer personal abuse when you respond and whilst I can't force you to stop it you might want to consider how it affects your credibility.

I hope that NORAD would check with the Bahamas' head of state (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) before doing any bombing...

Bomb: a hollow projectile containing explosive, incendiary, or other destructive substance.

I'm guessing that as you don't seem to agree with this definition that you think that a smoke bomb is slang, too.

Also, there is no such thing as 'British Law'. We do have English law (which is the law of England and Wales), Scottish law (the law of Scotland) and Northern Irish law (the law of Northern Ireland), and then there are other independent jurisdiction in our other territories

Clearly you don't know the difference between Great Britain and the United Kindom.

Yet another howler from DA Wood: "One of the trios was supposed to be few, less, least." Really? Wouldn't that be either "few, fewer, fewest" or "less, lesser , least"?

What can you do with a man so convinced of his own cleverness? Come on, he believes the man often referred to as the "father of modern linguistics" is called "Chompsky", rather than Chomsky.

Another amusing nonsense from good old DA Wood. He claims you are either ready or not ready AND that the English of John Locke is the same as the English of today. Here is a quote (with original orthography) from The works of John Locke Esq: In three volumes, published in 1714, You will note that he says "more ready"

"...will Men be more ready to lend, and Borrowers be furnifhed for all thofe brave Purpofes more plentifully...?"

DA Wood, always ready with a nonsense statement to amuse us, says: "Language is NOT always evolving and changing -- because if so the writings of Chaucer, Shakespeare, John Locke, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc., would make no sense at all now."

Is he seriously telling us that Chaucer is intelligible to the average reader today? By way of example, here is a verse of Chaucer's.

The double sorwe of Troilus to tellen,
That was the king Priamus sone of Troye,
In lovinge, how his aventures fellen
Fro wo to wele, and after out of Ioye,
My purpos is, er that I parte fro ye.
Thesiphone, thou help me for tendyte
Thise woful vers, that wepen as I wryte!

I also note that he makes much of the influence of German on American English. It seems that he is unaware of the basic linguistic fact that English is a Germanic language and the German influence has been there from the start.