Andrew,
I'm curious about the practical outworking of your position globally. As I understand it, you see yourself as descended from Scots and therefore bound (?) by the covenants made by your forefathers (and mine), and the Bible(s) that they authorized. What about Americans of different descent (Finns, Swedes, Italians, Irish, etc.)? Are they similarly bound by the decisions of a magistrate who was never "theirs" (even in an ancestral sense)?
I would hold that, since the covenant was made between a nation and God, they are "bound" just as someone moving to Scotland from Spain in the 17th century would have been bound. I believe that historically Covenanters held that the SL&C is binding and continues to bind the USA, as the American plantations existed when the kingdoms of Great Britain bound themselves (including their foreign lands and their posterity) in the SL&C. The covenants were sworn and renewed numerous times in North America (for example, the RP in the colonies first formally renewed the covenants in 1743 at Middle Octorara in Pennsylvania: see text available at https://www.truecovenanter.com/covenants/octorara_covenant_renewal.html ), and the political separation from the British crown did not nullify these covenant obligations as lawful oaths in the Scripture continue to bind posterity even after death and cannot be annulled - as Rutherford put it (referring specifically to the Scots' National Covenant and the SL&C) "no power on earth can absolve, and liberate the people of God from the bonds and sacred ties of the oath of God." (A TESTIMONY to the COVENANTED WORK OF REFORMATION, (From 1638, to 1649,) IN BRITAIN & IRELAND, pp.20-521.) There are readily available many better (lengthier) explanations than mine by earlier Covenanters and in what became the RPCNA. What of those in other countries whose translations into their language were improper, by your standards?
I don't believe I commented on other nations and their translations - but if the Church courts of any nation receive or authorize a particular translation or underlying text, it would be proper for that text to be used in worship and in controversies of religion. Should they abandon their national Bibles and learn KJV English?
Only if that is what their Church courts decide is best for their flock. Translate the KJV into their language (I have heard people argue this)?
I have never argued for the KJV, but I do know there are national Churches who do this if they do not have the resources to translate from the original languages. Again, if that is what their Church courts decide is best for their flock, I do not see what the issue would be. Returning the Rutherford, he puts forth a very high view of the Church in Due Right of Presbyteries and the powers and actions of presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies. I believe this has been largely lost, even in Reformed and Presbyterian circles. Or do they still have the pure Word of God in their own tongue - even if the only translation is based on the CT?
Again, I am not a "TR guy" - if a Church court decides a CT translation is best for their flock, that is within their power to do so. Does the doctrine of the lesser magistrate apply, so that the mayor of a city or the governor of a state could covenant with God and declare a different Bible "authorized"? Or does it have to be a king?
I would say "No" to both questions. First, because, as previously stated, my understanding of WCF Chapter 31 is that while the civil magistrate may and at times should call upon the Church to make a judgment on issues such as the text and translation of Scripture (31.2 - see also the end of 31.5), magistrates are barred from making such a judgment themselves (31.3). Second, I am not a monarchist - the civil magistrate does not have to be a king because I do not believe Scripture endorses any one form of government, though I believe the light of nature shows some forms are better than others. I appreciate and hope I have answered your questions - I apologize for the wordiness on my end.