Jake Painter republic is better because it gives the people a democratic say in who they want as a head of state.
Richard Frazer We need to modernise the system always to move with the changes in society David. Society changes. Maybe in darker less educated times the serfs needed dominating. In educated times we need to be free citizens
16 hours ago · · 1
Mick Constable But Jake, do the public want that, events of the past four days would strongly suggest they do not
Jack Barker Philip, the system validates the revolting dogma of inherited privilege- "Some are born to greatness". This is the antithesis of equality, social mobility & progress.
Hex Austen I've just returned from New York City. The comparisons between there and here made me feel negative - until I saw the flotilla going down the Thames. The Queen reminded me why I should feel proud to be British. The Queen has been in my life all my life; she is a constant, a role model for me to want to make the best of myself and the best of adversity. She has had plenty to contend with, starting with being fatherless and a monarch simultaneously at the age of 25. I can't even imagine how that feels.
To me, the Queen is the symbol of unity. She is head of the Commonwealth and offers them protection and interest and companionship. I have travelled extensively over the years. Its overwhelming the affection that other countries hold for our Queen. With such enormous power, influence and control under her belt, she puts the tinpot dictators and corruptible leaders to shame. She is a shining beacon of love and shared humanity with us all. She is a member of my family. And I'm proud to say I would want to do whatever she asked of me in gratitude for the years of symbolic constancy in a world that is rapidly changing. She comforts me.
As far as her bringing in income compared to output, the calculation is probably inestimable; tourism is one of our highest earners in this country and she is at the head of it by just breathing.
16 hours ago · · 5
John C Mccusker The lesson of the Jubilee is that you can get clean away with this sort of thing if you don't march it down the Garvaghy Road.
Simon Wright I can not believe a republican has just tried to claim that in 2008 43% of the population wanted abolition of the monarchy. IS GMTV / Mirror a polling company? i thought one was a newspaper and the other a morning tv show.
Lets for a second say they are right though. So in 2008 43% wanted a republic, in the past month 4 polls have been published showing support for a republic is between 10-16%.
What great success you guys are having!
16 hours ago · · 1
Ashley Walsh PF - Do they need to retain constitutional roles to continue helping others? If so, is there any reason those who do this job more effectively can't have a go?
Richard Frazer If people have always been in a dark box. They will be reluctant to step out the box into the world outside. However they will be able to choose what they live in outside the box.
16 hours ago · · 1
Jack Barker After 60 years, can anybody quote a famous speech or point to a moment of crisis or celebration where the Queen offered leadership & inspiration??????
16 hours ago · · 2
British Monarchist Society The BMS supports the current role of the Monarch, in an apolitical ceremonial role that is above the ebb and flow of party politics.
16 hours ago · · 2
David Soutter we have accountablle leaders which you and i elect, even at £150, we give that to Brussels very day and we ahve no pwer at all as to what happens there. Would it reduse costs what has that to do witht he argument on an elected head of state. Hollande driving down the chams eleyese looked foolish in a saloon car, in fact he looked stupid. How will it reduce the money they spend unless you intedn to limit the money they spend then how are independent, What you asre saying is you want to control there spending.......how soon will you want control over what i spend....very democratic. The religion matter is for concience this is a Christain country with a christian head of state. I was amased to here your supporters being interviewd by Iranian television who suported democracy......the same democarcy that stones people to death. WE need more elitisam not less...If what you say is the case then the country has chosen as they could get themselves elected and then change things.......and
Philip Fairweather We are free citizens...One of the first countries to move from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy and have the monarch as a sybol of our freedom rather than our oppression...
16 hours ago · · 1
Joe Gleeson Si Si!!!!! I've missed you!!!! The poll the BMS just posted above showed that 53% of the population are de facto Republicans, wanting to choose their own Head of State :) They just don't know what it's called yet!
Richard Frazer In regards to the question. Are we after a democracy or a republic. They are different.
A democracy can be a bunch of people elected to make decisions for you.
We are talking republic which is by the people for the people. I want the latter
16 hours ago · · 1
Hex Austen Basically folks, its a love affair. Your eyes are opened or they arent as far as I'm concerned. I have no trust that any other leader politically influenced can achieve a symbol of near perfection the way she does.
16 hours ago · · 2
Scott Owens Isn't much of this debate really about traditionalism versus modernity? The traditionalists basking in the reflected light of a rich history of Kings and Queens they'd no part in, the modernists embarrassed at the deference afforded an unelected institution? I can't see I'm convinced by the benefit of change, though I share that embarrassment. I may be swayed by another kowtowing performance from the BBC like that we've just seen ;)
Simon Wright Jack .. Yes i can..
In 1977 Her Majesty the Queen stated she can not forget that she was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ... and perhaps this jubilee is a time to remember the benefits union has inferred, at home and internationally on all the people of our United Kingdom. (something like that anyway, i typed it rather than looking it up).
It was a very moving speech and very relevant today considering the separatist threat.. something that a republic would make worse if England gets to pick its own politician to be head of state every few years.
16 hours ago · · 2
Joe Gleeson Precisely my point, Jack Barker (i fear that post may have become lost in a heap of comments, it's a shame as it was a good one! ;) ). The Queen has done nothing very well indeed, which is after all her job description. I, however, would prefer a president with a mandate from The People to do 'something'.
16 hours ago · · 1
Richard Frazer Hetty a selfless women would not be one of the richest women in the world of the back of her subjects toils
16 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter Jack She asked tow Prime Minister to leave office as they losat the support of the people. She is notb there to make speeches...........she is independant.......only politicians have opinions
Scott Owens ...and I'd also say that the Queen sans expensive couture jewellery and gladrags has as much charisma as Gordon Brown. Have you ever sat through the Xmas speech? Jesus....monodrone borefest...
16 hours ago · · 1
Joe Gleeson And if you can only drag up one speech in 60 years, that frankly ain't very good going now is it?!
Jake Painter no western style democracy should not be gotten rid of because when an unsavery monarch comes about the people will have no means to take them of the throne.
Simon Wright Joe - ive missed you too, but that is simply not true. If someone is asked what do they prefer, Prince Charles, Prince William, or a president.. And just 10% say they want a president, its clearly that the majority or even the large minority are not republicans.
I can understand people wanting a young prince and his young bride to be "next", but that is very different to saying we reject Prince Charles. Clearly if you want a King William you have to support the monarchy and oppose a republic, even if that means a few years with King Charles.
Jack Barker Hex you say: "tourism is one of our highest earners in this country and she is at the head of it by just breathing." Is she really?? Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, only 1 royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle (number 17) beaten by Legoland Windsor (number 7). The success of the Tower of London suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle were vacated by the Windsors & opened up to tourists ALL YEAR ROUND- let visitors explore every room & courtyard & see the grounds & magnificent art. In a Republic, the British tourist industry would still be successful- castles & palaces would remain part of our heritage. The government body for tourism hasn't even collated statistics on the Monarchy as an attraction, which shows it's clearly not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.
16 hours ago · · 1
Scott Owens Jake, an "unsavoury monarch" wields no more power than a kindly monarch. The public's support is all that sustains it.
Richard Frazer Very convienient for the royal family to be free of political opinion from time to time when it gets difficult. However they step in when they need to influence things in their favour. How can they lead the direction of a country and not be politically motivated. That is not possible.
They are fully political. They lead the monarchy party which rules over all other parties and has no competition.
16 hours ago · · 1
British Monarchist Society Scott Owens is cross that The Queen's speech reading isn't up to scratch. I suppose the person who wins presidential elections is the best auto-cue reader!
Joe Gleeson BMS, so she's in the top 0.000417% of wealthy people. Good lord, it must be dreadful for her!
16 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter so do republicans want an indepenat head of state or as Joe Jack and Richard make it very clear a politician with a mandate. Hitler had a mandate, Mugabe had a mandate, Pinochet had a mandate Pol pot had a mandate ........sorry no we have as a nation thought about it and elected to keep a monarch who kjeeps a check on what they do..........just by being there
Richard Frazer In reality we have 3 houses of parliament. The common, then the lords, then the palace. The palace rules over all, so they are political as they can stop laws in their tracks.
16 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter No Mubarak ordering the soldiers to fire on the people because he lost an election
16 hours ago · · 1
Scott Owens I'm not "cross" BMS, just puzzled at how such a lack of charisma entertains you or anyone else. You're full of superlatives for a woman who simply does the job she is paid very very very very handsomely to do. She has nothing to say of significance.
Simon Wright Jack Barker - part of the attraction of buckingham palace is its the heart of the British monarchy. its no palace of Versailles in terms of scale. Besides those figures only count people who go on the tour. 10,000s of tourists visit Buckingham Palace each week and dont go inside. They are still tourists!
Joe Gleeson And nobody in this country has ever ever ever EVER 'elected to keep a monarch'. We've never been given the chance.
16 hours ago · · 1
Philip Fairweather The thing is...When the Queen or another senior Royal appears in public they always draw a crown, tourists and residents alike...You don't have to pay to get to to see them, but there are a lot of small businesses and enterprises working on the fringes of such appearances and they are the biggest tourist earners, but would be the biggest losers if there was no monarchy to sustain them...
British Monarchist Society http://www.shoppingblog.com/ 2011pics/ royal_wedding_well_wishers_ buckingham_palace.jpg
Here are some people consenting to the Monarchy
Google images returned no images for a similar sized republican movement
Dave Harman Honestly I don't care about the economics side of the monarchy, because you could argue for days on whether we would make more or less if we opened Buckingham palace as tourist attractions instead and would still get no where, I'm against the monarchy because it's undemocratic to have somebody born into a position of power no matter how ceremonial said position is. And it's not like she has the power to dissolve a democratically elected parliament or anything...
Joe Gleeson I'm with Scott Owens here. Everyone is harping on about what a brilliant job she's done - when asked to expand, all anyone has actually been able to say as to why is that she doesn't complain! Bloody hell, give her a medal!!
16 hours ago · · 1
Simon Wright And your not asking to replace our monarchy with a new legoland. You want a politician as our head of state. Which means the worlds media would not have shown wonderful images of Buckingham Palace in the past 48 hours, nor would 100s of millions seen our culture on display last year for the royal wedding.
Monarchy puts us on the map. It gets people hooked on our culture and heritage.. and yes it means people visit. I counted dozens of people interviewed on the telly in recent days from overseas.. saying they have come for this event. An event an empty building would not be able to stage.
16 hours ago · · 1
Jake Painter yes scott but the question was asked on whether our democray should be replaced by a ruling monarchy which will give the monarchy a hell of a lot more power than they do know and will not have to care about public support.
Jonah Hobbs In response to Richard's comment,
The expenses of the royal family are politically controlled as the Civil List is set out by Parliament in the Budget
It's my opinion that having the monarch as head of state and head of the Church is the best way of separating religion and Government as she appoints a separate Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury
Elitism exists and still would exist in that most top politicians come from the elite, which doesn't consist solely of the royal family
The leader of the country is the Prime Minister, a role which any layperson is capable of attaining, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it is in fact the monarch
Scott Owens Oh no Jake, it'd be proper mental to introduce a ruling monarchy. I'm not surprised it's suggesting as a lot of ideas in the political universe at the moment seem to be harking back to a historical era we never lived in.
British Monarchist Society Elizabeth II makes hundreds of people happy every day when she meets them.
If that weren't the case, then her diary would not be packed with people who want to book her to visit!
16 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter Jo missed the earlier comment Hitler was elected as head of state.....minority vote......bigger than you supporters then changed all the laws as head of state he had the power to do so. Mugabe did exactly the same. Your not democrats you just want to be in power over those who dont agree with you
16 hours ago · · 2
Simon Wright I have never argued that we should keep the monarchy for tourism reasons, our constitution is far more important than that, but it is obvious to anyone that monarchy is a big British brand, respected around the world. Do you think the president of the United States issues a video congratulating Legoland on their anniversary in the way he honoured the Queen today?
16 hours ago · · 1
Joe Gleeson Simon - no, why do you hate the country so much?! THE PEOPLE put the country on the map! The sports men and women, the artists, the writers, the scientists, the everyday worker who helped to make us an economic giant, THEY are what put us on the map! Not some bizarre dysfunctional family!
16 hours ago · · 2
Craig Pedley BMS your photo.evidence accounts for a fraction of the country, what about the masses that show no specific inclination? Simon, can you prove that?
16 hours ago via Mobile ·
Joe Gleeson David, I'm for a written constitution approved via referendum. Stick all your monarchy/republic, voting system, europe stuff in that document and vote on each clause. Only then will anything have any democratic legitimacy.
James Peacock Well i suppose in some aspect you could say the Glorious Revolution was a time when people got as close to "electing" their head of state in the history of this country
Richard Frazer A monarch is already a dictator established before the modern age. We have already had our Mugabes and Hitlers and they were successful in planting their children and children's children on the throne.
We need to say no to dictators in the modern and choose our future.
16 hours ago · · 1
Philip Fairweather If we had an elected Head of State, you can be sure far less people would be so keen to meet them...Particularly the people that didn't vote for him/her...
16 hours ago · · 1
Scott Owens Why does it make people happy though BMS? She's an old lady, one of many!
16 hours ago · · 1
Robb Ross A monarch like a president , someone who is there at the consent of the people as the head of a nation is one thing , But a hireditary monarch ?, are they there because we adore them in a god sense fanatasism , or is it that they are there to cement an institutianalised hierachy for some at the top which gain and hold power , those in the financial system and government which without a higher consent position would be weaker ? therefore we are marketed to adore and worship .
Secondly , All the assets and wealth, land . do you believe that these should be removed ? As it was all built on stolen plundered wealth from britain and the rest of the world . Since If any of the rest of us would do so it would be seized by the courts ?
Robin French "Isn't much of this debate really about traditionalism versus modernity?"
No, it's about unjustified change. If there's some linear chain of social progress leading from monarchy through republicanism, please tell me what the next step is, and we can skip to that. Talk of something being old-fashioned and in need of replacement with something 'modern' is a poor replacement for a justification.
16 hours ago · · 3
Dave Harman Also as for putting our country on the map, the two countries in the world who receive the most tourism are America and France, both republics who do not need a monarchy to put them on the map.
16 hours ago · · 2
Richard Frazer They are not there because we adore them. They are there because they are they and they have guns.
16 hours ago · · 2
Cecilia Fisher well richard you can be assured that scotland wont have a succesion of salmonds ;olololololololololololol
16 hours ago · · 3
David Soutter The bizare dysfunctional family is exactly why they retian their postion becuase they reprent us slighty strange dysfuntional people ........they dont tell us what to do or try to stop us from doing what we want but they stop politiicans from taking that power from us
Joe Gleeson David. Hitler was not democratically elected as anyone who's done GCSE History will tell you. He got his goons to go round beating up the opposition. Even you monarchists can't think that that is democracy!! ;)
16 hours ago · · 1
Simon Wright Joe - I love our country, i am incredibly proud to be British and i do not believe that we need a monarchy to be a great country, i do think it certainly helps though and we would be a far worse country without it. We have divided politics, we have divided sporting teams (thanks to fielding separate football/rugby teams) . One of the few occasions where we all have a chance to celebrate being British is on monarchy related matters.
I wish it wasnt the case, and we were as patriotic as america is in terms of flying the flag all the time. But that would not happen in a republic. You are simply ignoring the evidence all around you if you think that the Queen in no way is a benefit for our country and respected on the world stage.. helping boost our country
Broderick Deòireach Scotland will have a referendum on the Queen after we achieve independence, it is logical that we have a referendum on who is our head of state.
16 hours ago · · 2
Jake Painter yes philip but its better to have a head of state who you dont like but can get rid of via election than to have a head of state who you dont like but you know you cant get rid of.
Dave Harman "I wish it wasnt the case, and we were as patriotic as america is in terms of flying the flag all the time. But that would not happen in a republic." you are indeed aware hat America is a republic yes?
David Soutter She is not there to stop rules being passed we get the politiicans we deserve. But she ensured Heath and then Brown left having been voted out.......clinging to power by their finger tips.
Donna Aston Wrong Jake. We have the power to overthrow the Monarchy - there is just isn't enough support for it.
16 hours ago · · 1
Broderick Deòireach "- Remember we as a nation are known all around the world for our warmth, culture , diversity and our beautiful country, which we take pride in and care of, along with the people and community whatever their race, sex, age sexuality and religion, We will never stoop as low as the idiots in ENGLAND , Remember we have our Own Parliament where we are making a difference to the people of Scotland, Be a proud Scot and re- post this in disgust of what is happening in England and support that we will never let this happen to our fellow Scots and community's.!!!!!!!!!!!!!"- Well said Cecilia!
James Peacock When France guillotined there Royals it didn't end all the suffering and immediately create a democratic paradise, it went through a "Reign Of Terror" where over a thousand people where guillotined in 1 month, then Napoleon took over and had himself crowned Emperor. My point to this is abolishing the Monarchy wont end a divide between the elite and the less well off.
16 hours ago · · 2
Joe Gleeson Si Si, you said it puts us on the map. That is entirely untrue, and, as has already been aluded to, Scots are seriously ambivalent towards Lizzie, only 40 road closures in the entirety of Scotland were received for the Jubilee! It's not as much of a unifying force as you think. The Irish literally laugh at it, the Americans watch with an almost perverted interest in something they seriously can't understand; maybe it does put us on the map, but for all the wrong reasons!
Broderick Deòireach Scots are the sovereign people, we are the deciders of our nations and we are the people that will take our country into a democratic and free stage, where we put the people first and not the elite.
Simon Wright Hitler won an election, did he win it fairly? no. But had Germany still had a monarch, would someone like Hitler become as powerful as he did? able to sweep away a weak president and declare himself Fuhrer?
Someone has to be at the very top of our system. in republics it is the president, almost always a politician. I would rather not have a politician as my head of state. I can tell you who our head of state will be over the next 50 years (unless there is an extremely bad accident). If we were a republic, can you even name who would be our first? No. Clearly being able to watch our future heads of state their whole lives is a nice vetting process?
16 hours ago · · 1
Dave Harman James nobody of sound mind would say it would, but it would help, claiming that when a monarchy becomes a republic it becomes a dictatorship or anything on those lines is absurd because America, the first true democracy had little to no trouble when it became a republic.
Jake Painter there is no democratic process to overthrow the queen donna so no it is you that is wrong.
British Monarchist Society This debate has gone a little crazy, let me clearly define our arguments for keeping politicians away from the office of head of state.
Constitutional monarchy is a very effective political system. A hereditary Head of State acts as an important element of continuity within a democratic system. The real powers (as opposed to purely theoretical ones – no British ruler has actually vetoed an Act of Parliament since c1720) of European monarchs are negligible. But as unelected figures above the political conflicts of the day, they retain an important symbolic role as a focus for national unity (very important in Belgium, for example). In Britain their right “to advise, encourage and warn” the Prime Minister of the day has acted as a check against overly radical policies, in Spain King Juan Carlos actually faced down a military coup in the 1980s.
Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing.
Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a formal residence and retreat, State visits and occassions, entertainment budegets, transportation, large staff and equally stringent security requirements (which still costs the public after a President and his family leave office). Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Instead monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of funds through the summer opening of Buckingham Palace and the year long opening of Windsor Castle and other Royal residences. Funds generated by visitors to these palaces and homes help in the upkeep and maintenence of our national landmarks. The British Monarchy also generates tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits.
Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).
16 hours ago · · 2
David Soutter Scotland is run by a chancer and a crook. He is using the 10% of Scotland who could politely be called the Braveheart tendency Failed by Labout and cross with the Conservatives Salmond is the current top of the heap. His party avoid saying what they will do of the ecomony Europe......If Scotland voyes for indendence they will be outside the UK and Europe unless Europe lets them in to be another Greece.
16 hours ago · · 1
Cecilia Fisher donna ,this is a statement ,by republican scotland [WE ARE NOT AMUSED !! Well at least in Scotland they were not amused by the masses of pro monarchy propaganda dished out by the BBC which was designed to get us all unquestionably to pay homage to an unelected head of state and her tax payer funded family by throwing a street party on every street throughout the land,Scotland a land of 7 million yet only 60 street parties held....good on ya Scotland we say.
Just maybe the Scottish people and their government are more concerned about spending money on their welfare state to benefit the many rather than spending out on elitist feasts of self adoring pomp, pageantry and gluttony of mind boggling proportions which in the end benefit no one apart from the very people that this jubilee nonsense was designed to benefit in the first place our very corrupt establishment and ist head the Queen.
Here is part of what is written in the Guardian today about the failed BBC propaganda:
"Who was celebrating? Officially, there were 9,500 street parties in England and Wales. But there were just 60 street parties in Scotland, and 20 of these were organised by the Orange Order, with funding from the Labour-controlled Glasgow city council. Given that these are people not wholly unfamiliar with the union flag, this leaves you with 40 in Scotland. This presents a real problem for the narrative of national unity. Setting aside the question of using public funds for such events, or the good judgment of the Labour party in supporting such a group, it does look as if mass disinterest has swept Scotland".
16 hours ago · · 4
Joe Gleeson You know, given that he managed to get through a Bill giving him complete 100% power over everything ever in Germany?
Broderick Deòireach Alex Salmond would be a brilliant head of state Simon, he puts Scots first, second and last!
16 hours ago · · 1
Donna Aston Monarchy CAN be overthrown.....They are there quire simply and because they are what people want and it is supported. The French managed to overthrow the Monarchy, Russia managed to overthrow the Monarchy....why couldn't we?
16 hours ago · · 3
Hex Austen "We've seen that it's in hardship that we often find strength from our families; it's in adversity that new friendships are sometimes formed; and it's in a crisis that communities break down barriers and bind together to help one another.
Families, friends and communities often find a source of courage rising up from within. Indeed, sadly, it seems that it is tragedy that often draws out the most and the best from the human spirit.
When Prince Philip and I visited Australia this year, we saw for ourselves the effects of natural disaster in some of the areas devastated by floods, where in January so many people lost their lives and their livelihoods.
We were moved by the way families and local communities held together to support each other.
Prince William travelled to New Zealand and Australia in the aftermath of earthquakes, cyclones and floods and saw how communities rose up to rescue the injured, comfort the bereaved and rebuild the cities and towns devastated by nature.
The Prince of Wales also saw first-hand the remarkable resilience of the human spirit after tragedy struck in a Welsh mining community, and how communities can work together to support their neighbours.
This past year has also seen some memorable and historic visits - to Ireland and from America.
The spirit of friendship so evident in both these nations can fill us all with hope. Relationships that years ago were once so strained have through sorrow and forgiveness blossomed into long-term friendship.
It is through this lens of history that we should view the conflicts of today, and so give us hope for tomorrow.
Of course, family does not necessarily mean blood relatives but often a description of a community, organisation or nation. The Commonwealth is a family of 53 nations, all with a common bond, shared beliefs, mutual values and goals.
It is this which makes the Commonwealth a family of people in the truest sense, at ease with each other, enjoying its shared history and ready and willing to support its members in the direst of circumstances.
They have always looked to the future, with a sense of camaraderie, warmth and mutual respect while still maintaining their individualism.
The importance of family has, of course, come home to Prince Philip and me personally this year with the marriages of two of our grandchildren, each in their own way a celebration of the God-given love that binds a family together.
I wish you all a very happy Christmas."
There are quite a few lines in there that resonate strongly with me.
16 hours ago · · 1
Broderick Deòireach Scotland would join the pound, have a seat on the MPC to influence economic policy for the UK, we would be in the European Union as we already are, and we would have all the treaties that the UK currently has with the EU.
Jake Painter they through of there monarchy through violent revolution donna not by democratically getting them out.
Politics UK No posts which are inflammatory/abusive are allowed.
Act respectfully to each other or I will close the thread.
16 hours ago · · 5
Simon Wright Jake - there is a democratic process. In may 2015 there will be a general election. Can i suggest all republicans vote for a party or politician that opposes the monarchy.. If you are the majority of the country, you will then get a parliament that will call a referendum.
Im a dedicated supporter of the monarchy, but i believe in parliamentary democracy. If the people voted for politicians who want a republic, wed have a referendum and that referendum would have to be respected (like is now happening with the SNP / Scotland) .
I would expect that the Queen and rest of the royal family respect the wishes of the people. If she does not, then in my opinion she will have violated the oath she took at her coronation.. and then clearly my loyalty towards the monarchy would change. But that wont happen. We will never elect a republican party and the Queen would always respect the will of the people.
16 hours ago · · 2
Donna Aston Yes but surely people can get their points across Cecilia and without stereotyping a nation of people as 'idiots'.......I believe there was little interest shown in the North East of England either for the Jubilee.
16 hours ago · · 4
David Soutter The UK is Scotland is not and given the perilious nature of the finances might not get in for years
British Monarchist Society Broderick you may think Salmond would make a good President. But what about the people who vote Labour, Tory, LD or Green? They would probably disagree with you.
Dave Harman To be fair the only party that is somewhat Republican is the green party and the issue of a monarchy is to be fair a small matter and I'm not going to base my entire vote around this one issue that shouldn't even be an issue in 2012.
16 hours ago · · 1
Philip Fairweather @Jake Painter A bad monarch can be got rid of in certain circumstances...It has happened twice since the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660...Once with James VII/II and again, more recently, with Edward VIII, even if the impression was that he walked rather was pushed...George IV also came close to dismissal, but died before action could be taken...
16 hours ago · · 1
Scott Owens I didn't give a "justification" though Robin - I merely asked a question if that is what the debate really revolves around, because that's how I perceive it ultimately. High horse not required.
David Soutter even then they would holding out the begging bowl..........run from Brussles with less infulence than Aryshire County Council
Joe Gleeson Si Si, I'll be voting Green but I disagree on GM crops. Many Tories want out of Europe. Every single vote is a compromise, if it wasn't then there'd be 40,000,000 votes for 40,000,000 different parties!
16 hours ago · · 1
Dave Harman BMS it's just like Republicans disagree with democrats in America about Obama, the difference being they actually get a say on who is there head of state, whilst we don't.
Robin French You'd think that people who claim to be motivated by a love of democracy would respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people.
16 hours ago · · 1
Donna Aston Revolution or not....they still overthrew their Monarchies. Revolution is probably what it would take - I highly doubt they would voluntarily give up their posistions and wealth....
Simon Wright Joe - I believe that loyalty to a politician in the way that is sseen towards hitler would not have existed if people had a monarch to express their loyalty towards and was seen as a powerful constitutional safeguard, rather than a weak president that could do nothing.
Donna Aston - well the russian federation is doing very well in the democracy front isnt it? The President of Russia and Prime Minister have both just completed a job swap which has enabled putin to return as president despite a two term limit.
Their written republican constitution you republicans seem to want didnt do much to help for them did it?
Jake Painter the monarchy can easily ignore the will of the people and like i have said they are not democratically accountable to no one. and puls there can still be royalist politicians who even though there would be a refferendum could quite easily try to keep the monarchy in if they are the majority in westminister.
James Peacock Fair enough point there Dave- i shouldn't tar all Republics with the same brush. But my concern is that there are always people waiting to seize power for themselves claiming it's in democracy. I personally feel that having a Monarch helps stop that, i feel that it represents unity for people, whilst not having any political power.
16 hours ago · · 1
Heather Dennis In May2015 there will be a general election in England-Scotland will be gone from the UK and its people will decide the date of ites election.
Dave Harman Robin French, if the people didn't respect the wish of the majority they would probably be trying to storm Buckingham right now and string the queen up. Okay maybe not that far but you get the picture. I would love a referendum on the monarchy, even if we would lose because at least we would get a say on whether we have one or not, kind of like I want a referendum on the EU.
However like the EU it seems we will never get a referendum on them.
Cecilia Fisher donna i totally agree [,just came back ] he does not speak for the majority of scots with his anti english rhetoric ,you know my views and how i feel ,i wont apoligise for him ,but dont judge us all by his values as i wouldnt you
16 hours ago · · 1
Robin French A president wields a ridiculous amount of power for an individual. Why does anyone think that's a good thing? The monarchy allows us to avoid that - the effective leader of our country is a member of parliament, accountable both to parliament and to us. We could probably use some new mechanism for dealing with constitutional matters, but I don't see why that should be a president just because that's what other countries have.
Cecilia Fisher it has NOTHING to do with alex salmond .if we vote yes in 14 the people will decide not alex salmond or any other polition
16 hours ago · · 2
Simon Wright Joe - whilst many of us may not like the EU, the fact we elect parties that support our membership of the EU is why we are still in it today and why it does have a democratic mandate.
Robin French Sanctimonious as ever, Scott. I must be right though, since no one yet has explained why something being 'modern' makes it necessarily better. Are hoodies better than greatcoats?
David Soutter Salmond is very use to playing the field but he needs the Braveheart division to even get a reasonable result in any vote. The same Scots who think it was only English on the opposite side at Bannockburn, Falkirk and Culloden
15 hours ago · · 1
Cecilia Fisher and if for arguments sake ,scotland decided on keeping the monarchy ,it will be the monarchy under scots law .[in a poll .most scots want anne to succed liz]
15 hours ago · · 1
Robin French Dave, I'm sure plenty of people on here right now would just love to have a button to push that would magically transform the Queen into an elected president in a business suit. Sod what most people actually want.
Dave Harman Robin look at countries like America they have a president and I would say they are the greatest country in the world. The queen still wields a lot of power too, she can dissolve parliament and veto laws that are being passed through parliament. At least with a president he is electable and if he is misusing his power (providing they haven't thrown him out of office like they did with Nixon) he can be voted out.
Cecilia Fisher david souter ,i doubt you know very much about scotland her politics or her people .do not bring alex salmond or scotlands politics into this .this is not about us .it is about a monarchy
15 hours ago · · 1
British Monarchist Society Do Republicans hold things like the Duke of Edinburgh's award and the Prince's trust in contempt?
15 hours ago · · 1
Simon Wright America is one of the greatest nations in the world.. their president has today just praised the Queen. Despite being a great country,, America has one of the worst political systems in the world.. something even citizen smith has recognised.
Dave Harman Simon a judge gets into his position of power through his own merits and has a 12 man jury decide the persons overall fate, he just decides the extent of the punishment if he is found guilty.
David Soutter |Cecilia if thinking that makes you happy........then keep tinking it. Salmond is beginning to get desperate and trying to stoke up any issue that seems to set Scot agianst English.........oil wells and nuclear stations
Robin French She only has that power on paper, she can't use it without causing a constitutional crisis. She doesn't and can't misuse her power, there's no requirement to renew her authority every 4 years. That you think the US is the greatest country in the world is deeply alarming.
15 hours ago · · 2
Cecilia Fisher and david i could bet my last penny NONE of your forefathers were there .perhaps before you shout about scots and english history ,you should read up on your own .
15 hours ago · · 1
Donna Aston David, no need to bring the Scots into it....this is about Monarchy, not the Scots referendum or history!
15 hours ago · · 2
Dave Harman BMS no I don't and I applaud the monarchy for doing some charitable work, but just because they do charitable work doesn't mean I agree with the sheer concept of a monarchy.
Simon Wright "May the light of Your Majesty's crown continue to reign supreme for many years to come." - President Obama today. I could not agree more.
15 hours ago · · 1
Scott Owens Robin, sanctimonious as in, say misreading a post and misunderstanding the question behind it? It was a question I was asking, and I bookended it by pointing out that I wasn't convinced by the argument for change....which you either missed, or simply glossed over. There really was no need for one of your chin-stroking pseudo-intellectual rants. I know you find the Royals "fun", and you know I'd rather watch paint dry and find it a failure of what constitutes genuine entertainment. But that doesn't mean I'm all for the Republican cause. What stoked the fire of your ire I've no idea.
Dave Harman No Robin, but he is still accountable to the general public, even if it is just 12 random people from the public.
Cecilia Fisher so to conclude .in this argument ,i believe an independent scotland would vote yes for the monarchy [as long as liz lives] but they wouldnt countenance charles as our king
Dave Harman And like I said he gets into his position of power through his own merits, unlike the queen who gets into it through sheer genetics.
Simon Wright Dave - You didnt answer the question. The question was.. do you think judges should be elected? I dont.. because i want a judge to be as neutral as possible rather than political. Why can i not want the same for my head of state.. An election would clearly make the office political. .
15 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter Both my gandfathers and one motherwhere Scots my surnamei Soutter and on the other die Watt. I know more about Scottish History than most pople nroth nof the border. Where would you like to start. What i see in Salmond and the SNP leadership is a bunch or crooked politicians who hae been given the keys to the safe. He reminds me of Robert Mugabe.........leader for life.
David Soutter As apoint we where on both sides a Cullden an can trace back to the Normans who eventually became the leaders of an independant Scotland
Scott Owens Simon, the United States is a template we must avoid - in almost every sense. It is actually a much more democratic nation than the UK in principle. But in practice, disenfranchisement is on a jaw-dropping scale....the consequences of what that means for just representation do not need spelling out.
15 hours ago · · 1
Donna Aston Charles isn't supported down here either Cecilia....the majority want to see William succeed. I think that when Charles becomes King...support will drop.
15 hours ago · · 1
Robin French And I answered your question/rebutted your idea that it's mostly about tradition vs modernity. You let forth as usual with accusations of high-horses and 'pseudo-intellectualism', as you always do when you don't want to deal with the points presented.
15 hours ago · · 1
Dave Harman I believe I did answer the question when I said he gets his job trough his own merits, the answer being no.
Greg Harris About the "elected judges" argument - judges gain their positions on merit; you don't become a judge because your father was a judge.
15 hours ago · · 1
Robin French That was a good post though Scott - the US is a great example of how 'democracy' as people imagine it isn't always as democratic as they think. More votes ≠ more democracy.
15 hours ago · · 2
Simon Wright
Scott - thats a reasonable comment. In my opinion we are far more democratic and equal in our system, unlike the american system where money clearly can buy elections. We have a greater safeguard to democracy too. America has it all written down in their constitution but that ends up being a negative thing at times.
For example.. the free speech part means that political adverts cant be banned in the way we ban them here making for cleaner politics with less money. Simply letting our politicians write a written constitution today scares the hell out of me. I wouldnt trust them. Far better to have an evolving constitution whereby we elect a labour government, they screw up by passing something like the human rights act.. and we can then elect a government that attempts to water it down or repeal it all together. That is safer.
Robin French What 'merit' is required for someone to perform in a ceremonial role, Greg & Dave?? What 'merit' does a popularity contest really decide?? A judge requires no democratic accountability because there's just no need for it, same with the monarch. That's the extent of the analogy. Elected police chiefs are another one.
Simon Wright
Greg - a judge has the power to decide if you go to prison or not. Its a position of huge power, the queen does not get to exercise such power does she? the point is you do not elect judges because it would make them political, and exactlythe same principle applies to the head of state.. you open it up to elections and it will become political.
Name me some people in the past 60 years who you would have liked as Head of State that would be more neutral than the Queen?
Dave Harman Simon on the issue of a constitution I have mixed feelings about it, a written constitution could ensure total free speech (claiming that total free speech is a bad thing under any circumstances is stupid in my opinion) however if a written constitution then added that gays can never get married, ever then you would in theory have an eternity of oppression on a group of people.
Scott Owens You didn't present any point Robin - as usual. You merely delude yourself otherwise. Infact, what you've written barely deviates from what I asked. Some rebuttal.
"No, it's about unjustified change (which might be why I added I was unconvinced of the argument for change...yes?). If there's some linear chain of social progress (interesting...it's not social, it's political progress surely?) leading from monarchy (traditionalism) through republicanism (perceived modernity), please tell me what the next step is, and we can skip to that. Talk of something being old-fashioned (well, it is) and in need of replacement (I didn't say it was) with something 'modern' is a poor replacement for a justification (again, precisely why I'm not convinced yes?)". Sanctimonious!
Robin French "Yes Scott because over the past 200 years America hasn't stood the test of time has it?"
What test of time? They're still here, we're still here. We have comparable standards of living. What advantage has having a president given them over us?
Dave Harman No merit is required, however I believe a great deal of merit is required for somebody to have the power to veto any law or dissolve parliament.]
Simon Wright Dave Harman - I agree with you there. personally id support a written constitution as long as i can write it. But id never trust labour, conservatives or liberal democrats to try!
15 hours ago · · 1
Greg Harris True, more than half of them were privately educated, but at least their positions weren't guaranteed through constitutional privilege. How doesn't a judge need to be there on merit? Would you want an idiot passing out sentences?
David Soutter well I have to say that despite a perfect oppurtunity all that has been said is that the Queen has too much money and we want it. The Queen spends too much money and we want control of it. No answersto the questions about elected heads who have gone of the rals, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mugagbe, Pinochet......et al.........no response to any real change or why it is needed. 2 nil to the Monarchy
Cecilia Fisher for me .most of the respect for the monarchy is actually for liz .she played her role well.[pity her of spring ,and her ofspring shoots ,didnt do as well.
15 hours ago · · 1
Simon Wright
Greg - id want someone experienced to be a judge and as neutral as possible. In terms of the head of state the same applies. The royal family provide that experience, clearly william has experience already from some overseas tours including meeting the US president etc. This means they gain experience of the role of head of state for years before the person actually becomes head of state.
What training would a president have? I do not know any republic in the world that bans politicians from standing for president or requires them to have a huge amount of experience. Why do you think if we became a republic we would be able to pick a system that prevents such problems?
15 hours ago · · 1
Alan Hope Why is it mostly people from Scotland are against our monarchy,maybe this should be the Political Scottish page !
15 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter
When ever you suggest onefor a post and its electedthe politiicians.........the Labout Party and the Conservatives have been running candiate camps for elected ploice authoirty groups for months. Just think for South Wales are pedding an ex Labout leader in wales well actually a third or fourt choice as the Labour Candidate .....could you imaginethe candidates for the post of 'president'........Colin Firth, Tony Blair, Ken Dodd, it beggars belief
Robin French
Hey, another deconstruction, another attempt at filling another person's mouth with words! Hooray! My point was that arguments about tradition are NOT the major part of this. Something being 'not modern' isn't an argument - what links something being 'modern' with something being 'good'?? It's nonsense. I don't think anywhere near as many people support the monarchy because it's traditional as do simply because the alternative doesn't seem to have a powerful enough case to justify the change. There you go. Enough ammo in that for you to construct some other irrelevant personal criticism? Maybe I'm being patronising or something... I'm sure you'll come up with something.
15 hours ago · · 1
Greg Harris
David - That's not the argument. It's ultimately about the inherent wrong in a system of hereditary privilege, financial matters are a secondary concern. Just because elections have spawned some bad regimes doesn't mean they're fundamentally flawed - how can it be wrong for the people to choose their representatives, rather than them being granted their roles through right of birth? Just look at Prince Charles - if he's not an argument against hereditary privilege, I don't know what is.
15 hours ago · · 1
Scott Owens Robin, no need for "irrelevant personal criticism"...as there was no need to deconstruct a simple question in such a lofty superior-than-thou wildly off-tangent manner (and yes, patronising is a fair summation).
I wasn't arguing that "modern" is good, nor that "tradition" is "the major part". This is something you've done all by yourself. Indeed, in another thread you posit "many people are basing their positions on overly-simplistic but immutable principles". Which is precisely what I was getting at. That there are those who are resolute Monarchists, and yes I believe largely due to a traditionalist principle, and resolute Republicans who feel the Monarchy to be embarrassing in the modern era (no doubt exacerbated by a fawning media). I still believe that's what largely drives the existence of the debate, and the excess emotiveness overall, and there are numerous examples throughout that tend to support that view.
Simon Wright greg - but you see we do choose our head of state. We choose to have a constitutional monarchy and the Queen as our head of state. If the people do not support a King Charles then the monarchy would be abolished or he would be forced to abdicate.
Robb Ross Some seem to forget that we have a royalist government , Torys are wigs , wigs origionated from royalists after the civil war to protect their wealth and infiltrate power , they did a good job and the power and wealth and enslavement of this country is built on this with todays government and corporations !
15 hours ago · · 1
David Soutter
Greg.........the financial argument has always been irrelevant.....except to those who take eveything from those who they dont like.....which is just theft. The argument about an elected head of state is that if you elect you beed people to stand......once they stand they are supported by one party or another. Once the are supported they ae biased. Once they are biased they are not independant.......would a tory leaning head of state of pushed Ted Heath out........would a Labour supporting president have sent Gordon Brown packing. The system is not perfect buit its better than all the alternatives.
15 hours ago · · 1
Greg Harris
How do we choose our head of state? That's ridiculous. You aren't born a monarchist; you don't choose anything. You're simply born "a subject"; normative views are then instilled, based not on reason but tradition. The situation is perpetuated by the influence of the sycophantic media and also the major political parties who benefit from a system that gives them almost unlimited power. I'd imagine a President might have intervened in some manner when Blair proposed an illegal war, for example.
That's the hope, Simon. The first option, that is.
15 hours ago · · 1
Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee Celebrations 2012 Just joined the conversation!. What a fabulous weekend!
15 hours ago · · 2
Greg Harris
David - "those who take everything from those they dont like..." - what? If you're saying republicans simply want to take away the Queen's money because they dislike her then you're missing the point completely. It's the fact that she's granted that money and her position because of the vagina she came out of; it's completely unacceptable that anyone should be born with a status that's constitutionally higher than that of anyone else. If a President has been elected, then they are at least accountable to the people. How political that role is differs, anyway. Whether it would be a primarily ceremonial role is irrelevant - it's the principle of it. Anyone should be able to become our Head of State, not just the members of one family.
14 hours ago · · 1
James Debrick Monarchy all the way if you want a Republic go live in France with all the other Traitors!
14 hours ago · · 4
Robb Ross Could be argued that the monarchists are the traitors james , after all one has lost his head charged with that very offence !
Harry Crawshaw Better a badly ran country whose peoples are at liberty to choose than a greatly ran country whose 'subjects' suffer from benign slavery. Advancement based on birth-right is a thing of the past. The French recognised this just over two hundred years ago.
14 hours ago · · 2
Simon Wright Anyway fun debate. The people want a monarchy and the people should get what they want. That is democracy! night and God save the Queen
14 hours ago · · 3
Robin French
You don't like the way I write, Scott? That's fine, whatever. I don't ever intend to sound the way that you accuse me of, and that annoys me. No one else digs at my use of language like you do, and you only seem to do it when you've imagined some kind of personal attack or insult. Sometimes I react badly to such things, I guess.
"I wasn't arguing that "modern" is good, nor that "tradition" is "the major part". This is something you've done all by yourself."
You kind of did argue the second part of that when you said "Isn't much of this debate really about traditionalism versus modernity?". You didn't say that tradition was good or that your opinion on the monarchy had anything to do with any of this, but I didn't say that you did. Tradition is a dumb argument, modernism is a dumb argument, and in pointing that out I was trying to show why they're not a major part of the debate. Some people try to make them so, and I find that very irritating, but I wasn't trying to counter some imagined argument of yours in saying so. You are right that a lot of people make their judgements on this based on emotion, but I still don't think that's just a function of tradition. To me, the main forces at play seem to be on the one hand an over-simplistic democratic ideal, and on the other a resistance to unnecessary change. The latter resembles traditionalism, but I think there's much less nostalgia tied up into it than that - people do have feelings towards the monarchy and the Queen in particular, but it's not the fact that it's a tradition that that they feel attached to. Mostly they seem to just think that it works pretty well, and there's no need to change it - how else could the huge support for the monarchy as shown by polls be tallied with the relatively small number of hysterical flag-wavers?
14 hours ago · · 4
Philip Fairweather @Robb Ross Charged by an illegal court set up by an illegal government when the defendant was also the sovereign Head of State of another country. The proto-Commonwealth of England government, if it had any legitimacy at all in England, had no jurisdiction in Scotland at the time...A completely illegal farce of a trial that doomed the entire British Isles to a decade of rule by fascist Puritan zealots...
David Soutter that might be yur view Greg (Harris) but most of the comment I read runs from a desire to take not just the Queens assets but anyone who they see as undeserving .............that is theft in another name.......maybe your indeservingand we should takeyour things
Robb Ross
Philip I argue that those puritan zealots by enlarge where also royalists playing the political to desperatley hang on to their power and wealth , Staying on the winning side ay , charles who ! lol , And yes your right in that sense of course it was illegal , if the the deffinition of legal was what one person thought above everybody else . I admire cromwell for what he risked and what he set out to do , but not what it became , And some that day would have gone to educate others through word of mouth and a world mainley illiterate . that on death the king was not a mystical special ordained by a unseeing god , but just another human no better than the nearest starving beggar , A blooded headless corpse to rot in a wooden box perhaps albeit a bit better than the many he never afforded sending them to their deaths !
Robb Ross Two wrongs will never make a right stephen i agree .
But lets put it in perspective royalism is no better than a criminal mafia evolved from the profits of theft and murder , Im not suggesting QE2 is in no way or her family this , They are victims of birth and have their freedom shackled just like the poorest .
But I think they are being held together by those who need symbolism as their authority and let them take the flak .
Philip Fairweather
The civil war was no great fight for freedom...It meant little to the average man in the street whether King or Parliament triumphed...You supported whoever your landlord supported and hoped the whole affair came to an end quickly...Cromwell wasn't fighting for the common man any more than the King was...Both sides were ultimately out for own ends with little thought for the upheaval, division and devastation it left behind...The Monarch failed, Parliament failed, but the Crown endured...
Robb Ross So no real change then phill . 461 yrs and it feels more like 10 !
A norman power struggle civil war you could say for most involved ?
Philip Fairweather Lots of changes...The Restoration of 1660 paved the way for the move from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy in 1688 and the gradual move to a true parliamentary democracy over the course of the next two centuries, making both institutions more accountable to the many rather than the few and sparing Britain from many of the revolutions and political upheavals that were to follow on Mainland Europe...
Robb Ross Thats an understatement philip in 1780 the electoral status was 214.000 out of an estimated population of 8 million , not much progess in a hundred years , but then we know it was never meant to be .
I argue that this so called democracy and monarchy are like bee"s in a hive and one cant exist without the other . or the bees might go there own way ???
Philip Fairweather
Still, we were further on the road to democracy than most of the rest of Europe at that stage. I'd say that was pretty good progress 131 years on from the collapse of absolute monarchy and 120 years on from the collapse of the dictatorship that followed it, especially by the standards of the 18th Century...By the beginning of the 20th Century, the majority of the male population had the vote...Not many other European countries could boast that...It's too easy to expect history to conform to modern ideals on progress and reform and vice versa...
Philip Fairweather
What I want to know though is what makes our era so special and the modern republican ideal such a pinnacle of achievement for those that would have Britain adopt it?...People who moan that monarchy is outdated or old-fashioned, republicanism is just as old...Both systems have endured for centuries alongside each other and both systems have spawned democracies and tyrannies alike...What makes the 21st Century so special that all countries are expected to conform to one ideal?...Is that not the worst kind of tyranny?...If a republic is what the people of the UK want, then so be it, but I believe the Monarchy will remain and will withstand any referendum...
9 hours ago · · 1
Andy Pryce
All the talk on here about how well attended things were,well yes,people are curious and love a good freak show which is what this was,a few months diwn the line when people get back to reality it will all be forgotten about,people get swept up in the moment and all the hype,peiple have great love for the Queen,not so sure about Charles and slapper Camilla,although im sure his propoganda machine the BBC will be working overtime to convince people of his credibility,thats when the Republican movement will start to make its move,i mean in this day and age are people really happy to be "subjects"of the queen,basically owned by her,its frankly laughable
6 hours ago via Mobile ·
Gilles Paling I will not have a slimy career politician as my head of state. If we have learnt from our mistakes, our history we would never want to return to a revolting regressive republic.
Philip Rowlands
To me the Monarchy is like a beacon to our nation, the physical embodiment of our nation's spirit. It is the one thing that can unite our already very divided nation, especially when the things are really bad. They represent Hundreds of years of history. To see our Royal Family, Palaces, Armed Forces etc. on display in all their glory, for the entire world to see truly makes me proud. And I just know that there are literally millions of people on earth who are envious of us. And what is the alternative, a President?
3 hours ago · · 1
Edward Dawson Nobody wants a republic in the UK. No one would vote for it the Jubilee shows that the monarchy is stronger now that ever. The Queen unites the nation, while politicians divide it.
Dan Smith @Edward, using the poll from this Facebook group as a source, I'd guess at around a quarter of people would currently support a republic. Give it a couple of hundred years and I reckon support will have dropped considerably (even though the royal family will have a better claim to being British then).
about an hour ago · · 1
Greg Harris
David - again, you're missing the point. I'm only referring to constitutional hereditary privilege, not wealth passing down in families. I'm not talking about inherited wealth - I'm talking about wealth that is granted by the public purse to someone just because of birthright, and someone who is, indeed, undeserving. I'm not a communist, if that's what you thought. The Queen is a parasite - look up the dictionary definition of a parasite and try and tell me she isn't. Those of you saying monarchy "isn't outdated" - don't be so ridiculous. What isn't outdated about power passing down a family line? Democracy comes from the Greek for "rule of the people" - that doesn't really work if "the people" are "reigned over" by a privileged institution.
49 minutes ago · · 1
Greg Harris
James - this is my country as much as it is theirs, or yours. I'd actually say I'm the true patriot; I want a better country for my descendants, a fairer and more democratic country. Having pride in the descendants of the winners of some ancient power struggle makes no sense whatsoever - it's just deference, and undeserved deference at that.
To the people talking about "unity" - do you realise how ridiculous you sound, when as we speak the Scots are gearing up for an independence campaign? Also, polls consistently put support for republicanism at between one-fifth and one-quarter of the population. That doesn't sound so "united" to me - the majority are actually indifferent, also, but for some strange reason they're always lumped in with the monarchists. By definition, if they don't care about the monarchy as an institution they're surely republican, but our sycophantic, fawning press wouldn't put that out, it wouldn't tie in with their Royal propaganda campaigns. Even the BBC are fawning, deferential and completely biased in favour of the monarchy - which completely breaks their impartiality commitments.
41 minutes ago · · 1
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Monarchy V Republic Debate Part Two
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now at present we are ruled under a monarchist system? but not quite.We are definitely NOT a democracy.If we want a democracy we will have to let the royalty look after themselves with the same rules as the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteFor me I wish my country to be a Republic and be called The Republic of Scotland.I wish for the country to have control over all utilities.Land under government control.e.g. if you have a house no matter the size ,but and ben,to a castle,if you do not occupy said premises for at least 9 months a year then you should forfeit,the property,and it will be given to locally homeless people.Or you can have the alternative to build an equal amount of accommodation for the local homeless.
Just read some more of the "reasons" to keep the monarchy like pets in a gilded cage! There is reasons for a lot of people for keeping the monarchy and it is pure selfish interest.First so many have privilege from being part of the pomp and therefore do not have to do any real work for their bread,parasitical I would say,and its time to get rid of all of them,its a shame so many people are afraid of change,if we do not change we stagnate and then die out at least with change brings new thinking and new creations/inventions.Think emigrating without having the hassle of actually going anywhere,just a nation being re-invigorated a new meaning and ambition for life.Just now you cant reach the top position in the country because it is hereditary,but in a republic you can with your own effort climb to the top,or stay at the bottom like now.
ReplyDelete