The royal famuly

[stoneyburn hibs]

Spending on the royal family to go up 3/4 in the next ten years, thoughts ?

[HappyAsHellas]

Gold plated scroungers - the sooner we get rid the better.

[calumhibee1]

Gold plated scroungers - the sooner we get rid the better.

Yup

[Pretty Boy]

Make sure you get your donations into Children in Need tonight, some kids going without a hot meal, caring for ill parents or reliant on overstretched services.

Meanwhile the really important stuff will be taken care off. ****ing sickening.

[Bishop Hibee]

An attempt to shore up broken Britain.

[steakbake]

Basically a lurch to shoring up the trinkets of Britain.

The queen should be the last and this benefits family should be told to get to f...

[stoneyburn hibs]

My thoughts is that it is disgusting, but respect our leaders we should. Wow.

[Mon Dieu4]

I genuinely cannot understand the thinking of anyone who in 2016 still thinks that being born into such privilidge is acceptable and they support it, they will no doubt bring out the old it's good for tourism nonsense

[Pretty Boy]

I genuinely cannot understand the thinking of anyone who in 2016 still thinks that being born into such privilidge is acceptable and they support it, they will no doubt bring out the old it's good for tourism nonsense

The tourism argument is nonsensical anyway. Does the idea that people would stop wanting to visit historical palaces etc if the monarchy was abolished really stand up to scrutiny?

The there's the 'contributions from the crown estates' argument which is also a load of nonsense when a bit analytical thinking is applied.

[Scouse Hibee]

I thought I had a problem with the Royal family until I realised just how much I had paid towards grossly overpaid footballers in my life :-)

[stoneyburn hibs]

I thought I had a problem with the Royal family until I realised just how much I had paid towards grossly overpaid footballers in my life :-)

So Royal family it is ?

[Scouse Hibee]

So Royal family it is ?

Prefer the Royle Family to be honest.

[Killiehibbie]

Off with their heads but if that's a bit extreme cut off their giros.

[Mibbes Aye]

Spending on the royal family to go up 3/4 in the next ten years, thoughts ?

I don't think that's right.

This isn't about the merits of a Royal Family,despite a lot of the responses above, I don't see their rationale either, it's just about accuracy.

When the Civil List was abolished,there was a five-year commitment that their funding would be 15% of Crown Estate income,to be reviewed round about now. As Crown Estate income can go up or down (but has appeared to go up), that isn't a fixed sum.

The review increased the amount that didn't go to the Treasury to 25%, for the next ten years, but that increase is earmarked for maintenance to Buckingham Palace,in part to safeguard stuff (including a lot of art) that is pretty much off the scale in terms of value.

So it's not quite what you're describing.

And before anyone starts talking about spending millions on artworks and the like, when people are eating from foodbanks, it's not a straight exchange. The Vatican art collection is worth possibly similar, possibly a lot more - given the Church's first principles,that would also appear wrong.

But it's not the job of artwork to ensure our poor don't starve though, it's the job of government.

It's a philistine who wants to sell the Pieta for a one-off lump sum, when far larger amounts are gamed out of the economy by those powerful enough to know how to evade or avoid their just taxes.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It isn't a matter of cost but principle for me: hereditary positions of power and privilege are undemocratic. It's that simple. There is no justification for the head of state being based upon accident of birth.

[lucky]

I don't care if it's a pound or a 100 million in a democracy we should elect our head of state.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I don't think that's right.

This isn't about the merits of a Royal Family,despite a lot of the responses above, I don't see their rationale either, it's just about accuracy.

When the Civil List was abolished,there was a five-year commitment that their funding would be 15% of Crown Estate income,to be reviewed round about now. As Crown Estate income can go up or down (but has appeared to go up), that isn't a fixed sum.

The review increased the amount that didn't go to the Treasury to 25%, for the next ten years, but that increase is earmarked for maintenance to Buckingham Palace,in part to safeguard stuff (including a lot of art) that is pretty much off the scale in terms of value.

So it's not quite what you're describing.

And before anyone starts talking about spending millions on artworks and the like, when people are eating from foodbanks, it's not a straight exchange. The Vatican art collection is worth possibly similar, possibly a lot more - given the Church's first principles,that would also appear wrong.

But it's not the job of artwork to ensure our poor don't starve though, it's the job of government.

It's a philistine who wants to sell the Pieta for a one-off lump sum, when far larger amounts are gamed out of the economy by those powerful enough to know how to evade or avoid their just taxes.

It is about the Royal Family, that's why I started the thread, if I want history I'll go to Greece in the summer. My point was should we be paying continuing exorbitant amounts for a fairytale.

[Pretty Boy]

It isn't a matter of cost but principle for me: hereditary positions of power and privilege are undemocratic. It's that simple. There is no justification for the head of state being based upon accident of birth.

Nailed it.

The idea that someone and their extended family along with all future descendents should have status and privilege because their ancestors were better at killing than yours or mine is ridiculous.

[Mibbes Aye]

It is about the Royal Family, that's why I started the thread, if I want history I'll go to Greece in the summer. My point was should we be paying continuing exorbitant amounts for a fairytale.

As I said in my post, I can't see the rationale for them either. I was querying the accuracy of your OP. The sums aren't right and the reality is the extra money appears to be essentially safeguarding artworks in a publicly-accessible way. It's not extra pocket money for members of the royals.

If you want a thread challenging the legitimacy of a 'royal family' there'll be no shortage of supporters and I doubt you'll find a defender.

But using the starting point you did wasn't really doing that.

[RyeSloan]

As I said in my post, I can't see the rationale for them either. I was querying the accuracy of your OP. The sums aren't right and the reality is the extra money appears to be essentially safeguarding artworks in a publicly-accessible way. It's not extra pocket money for members of the royals.

If you want a thread challenging the legitimacy of a 'royal family' there'll be no shortage of supporters and I doubt you'll find a defender.

But using the starting point you did wasn't really doing that.

Maybe it's me but I kind of find it a bit sad that everything has to be controversial.

Buckingham palace is clearly a national icon and a national asset. To suggest that we should just let it go to rack and ruin or literally up in smoke because there is food banks is ridiculous.

I'm no lover of the royal family nor the grace and favour of the civil list but I can understand that such buildings will require expensive reburishment and accept that it makes sense to do so with or without the Windsors about.

[Pete]

"Renovators will replace around 100 miles of electrical cabling 30 miles of water pipes, 6,500 electrical sockets, 5,000 light fitting and 2,500 radiators."

It will be a bit of a shock for them when the bedroom tax kicks in!

I certainly don't mind money being spent on renovating architecture or safeguarding fine art. As others have said, it's very easy to think about things in terms of cold, hard cash, especially when times are tough...but preserving priceless things for future generations is essential.

I've only read a bit about it though but it appears that the queens pocket money in 2017/18 will be £76million instead of £40 odd million. I also read a tweet that asked what sacrifices they have made when millions of us are dealing with the consequences of austerity...and that's pretty much how I feel when I hear about such huge, rising personal allowances.

[ACLeith]

Nailed it.

The idea that someone and their extended family along with all future descendents should have status and privilege because their ancestors were better at killing than yours or mine is ridiculous.

And if Edward VIII had not chosen love over "duty" 80 years ago, then the current royals would have been at best bit-part players on their stage and some would never have been born. The fickleness of fate or the nonsense of fawning over hereditary power and influence?

As they refuse to let Buck House be opened for longer periods to raise more revenue then make them find the cost out of their own vast wealth.

[Pretty Boy]

I think it would take someone pretty hard of thinking to argue that items of historical value and priceless art should be flogged to the highest bidder. I had the same argument with someone in Rome recently after visiting the Vatican. Keeping a lot of these pieces on display for the public is preferable to them being lost to the private collections of the highest bidder.

Whether the safeguarding of these pieces requires tens of millions of pounds being paid to a family who are as dysfunctional as any who appear on Jeremy Kyle is what the debate is about.

Do we require a royal family to preserve Buckingham Palace (and I'd question why both it and Westminster were allowed to get into their current states in the 1st place)? If historical buildings and artefacts were safeguarded in trust would there really be less of a desire anongst the public abd tourists to see them? Could the additional money spent on the monarchy beyond the sovereign grant (eg the security bill picked up by the Met or the cost of visits covered by local councils) be better spent elsewhere? This spending is estimated to take the cost of the royals close to £340M as opposed to the official figure.

I'd start by following Denmarks lead and cutting all the hangers on from the public purse.

[calumhibee1]

I'd get rid of them in a second. The question is, how would the UK ever go about doing that?

[One Day Soon]

If they weren't already there you wouldn't set them up would you? Who would you choose and how?

The only thing I'd prefer them over would be another layer of politicians, like an elected President. Since the Queen is the Head of State I guess once you choose not to keep them we're going to need a vote for a replacement as Head of State - that means a President. Who would we be choosing between just now? It will be a party appointee race so I'm guessing the choices would be something like William Hague, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, Alex Salmond and some Green tw4t. Probably better throw in a 'celeb' outsider too - let's say that Geordie girl from 'I'm a celebrity', the Sun might even bankroll her campaign. Then we need to throw in the outsider, like Farage or some other 'shake up the system' outsider - perhaps that other repellent one - Katie Hopkins, because she tells it like it is and says what people think. So would I prefer any of the above to the Queen? Actually no.

They are a giant soap opera that markets the UK globally on every media platform just by being there. I don't know how you measure the 'soft power' of nations but they must be pretty close to holding an ace in that poker game. Does anyone here know the Presidents of Israel, Ireland, Italy or Germany without using Google? Does that justify their cost? No idea, but maybe someone could post here a Royal Family version of GERS so we could have a discussion based on evidence.

I wouldn't have their life for the world but maybe when you're born into it you just really love it.

I also think that the constitutional value of having a powerless Head of State incapable of meddling in the politics of the state is extremely high. And while I'm at it I'd keep the House of Lords too because the alternative would be a gruesome bunch of party hacks, but that's another matter.

[snooky]

Slight diversion but throw in all those knighthoods dished out to the nobs and slobs of the business & entertainment worlds.
I will never address a 'Sir' as 'Sir'. They're a' but coofs. (A man's a man for a' that).

[RyeSloan]

If they weren't already there you wouldn't set them up would you? Who would you choose and how?

The only thing I'd prefer them over would be another layer of politicians, like an elected President. Since the Queen is the Head of State I guess once you choose not to keep them we're going to need a vote for a replacement as Head of State - that means a President. Who would we be choosing between just now? It will be a party appointee race so I'm guessing the choices would be something like William Hague, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, Alex Salmond and some Green tw4t. Probably better throw in a 'celeb' outsider too - let's say that Geordie girl from 'I'm a celebrity', the Sun might even bankroll her campaign. Then we need to throw in the outsider, like Farage or some other 'shake up the system' outsider - perhaps that other repellent one - Katie Hopkins, because she tells it like it is and says what people think. So would I prefer any of the above to the Queen? Actually no.

They are a giant soap opera that markets the UK globally on every media platform just by being there. I don't know how you measure the 'soft power' of nations but they must be pretty close to holding an ace in that poker game. Does anyone here know the Presidents of Israel, Ireland, Italy or Germany without using Google? Does that justify their cost? No idea, but maybe someone could post here a Royal Family version of GERS so we could have a discussion based on evidence.

I wouldn't have their life for the world but maybe when you're born into it you just really love it.

I also think that the constitutional value of having a powerless Head of State incapable of meddling in the politics of the state is extremely high. And while I'm at it I'd keep the House of Lords too because the alternative would be a gruesome bunch of party hacks, but that's another matter.

ODS....dunno what's happened to you (or maybe me) but that's another post I find myself agreeing with! [emoji106]

That said I'm wondering if there is a concept of no head of state? We have a government and a prime minister why would we need anything more, esp. If it was more a figurehead role rather than an executive one.

[danhibees1875]

Slight diversion but throw in all those knighthoods dished out to the nobs and slobs of the business & entertainment worlds.
I will never address a 'Sir' as 'Sir'. They're a' but coofs. (A man's a man for a' that).

Apart from STF and Sir David Gray of course. :wink:

Financial debate aside, as I've not seen the actual figures (if they exist), I'm no fan of the royal family. People being born into such status and lifestyle just seems wrong. Although you could say the same about someone born into a rich family normally I guess, but they're not as idealised as the royals are - which is maybe part of my problem.

Anyone any idea what the general opinion on the royal family is across the UK/Scotland? I feel this thread probably doesn't hold true for the wider population. I'd hazard a guess at something like 75% support across the UK, falling to 60% for Scotland.

[High-On-Hibs]

Make sure you get your donations into Children in Need tonight, some kids going without a hot meal, caring for ill parents or reliant on overstretched services.

Meanwhile the really important stuff will be taken care off. ****ing sickening.

Children in Need and just about any other charity sponsered by the BBC are just as crooked as the Royal Family. They display the money "raised", but not the amount of money that is actually donated directly to the cause.

[Just Alf]

Children in Need and just about any other charity sponsered by the BBC are just as crooked as the Royal Family. They display the money "raised", but not the amount of money that is actually donated directly to the cause.
Shame we couldn't get our letter writer... "Sydney" to write a FOI request! .. just a shame he's gone back to hide in Brokeback.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

A state that ensures that only a very limited few privileged people can rise to be head of that state, can never be truly democratic.

[Pretty Boy]

Children in Need and just about any other charity sponsered by the BBC are just as crooked as the Royal Family. They display the money "raised", but not the amount of money that is actually donated directly to the cause.

My post was meant to be, for lack of a better vocabulary on my part, satirical as opposed to a genuine plea for donations to CIN.

[hibsbollah]

It's fine by me. Refurbish it, let Brenda and Philip move into a salubrious 2 bed pad in Kensington if there's any left unlet by Russians or Saudis, and open the palace as a massive shelter for the capitals homeless.

[steakbake]

It's fine by me. Refurbish it, let Brenda and Philip move into a salubrious 2 bed pad in Kensington if there's any left unlet by Russians or Saudis, and open the palace as a massive shelter for the capitals homeless.

That is what could happen if society wasn't geared towards maintaining privilege, elites and constantly reinforcing a failing system.

That time will come though.

[Gatecrasher]

Isn't this extra money for preserving the Palace and not going to the Royal Family? It's one of the most famous buildings we have. It's up there with the Empire state building.

[steakbake]

Isn't this extra money for preserving the Palace and not going to the Royal Family? It's one of the most famous buildings we have. It's up there with the Empire state building.

I can see the point and would agree if the building was not occupied by people who effectively own it and could well afford to cover the cost.

At a time when there are people in the country being forced to work when they are seriously ill and there is a growth in organisations that need to exist to give food to people who cannot afford to eat, all in the name of austerity, then I'm not sure it's really a priority?

[Pretty Boy]

I can see the point and would agree if the building was not occupied by people who effectively own it and could well afford to cover the cost.

At a time when there are people in the country being forced to work when they are seriously ill and there is a growth in organisations that need to exist to give food to people who cannot afford to eat, all in the name of austerity, then I'm not sure it's really a priority?

If the ridiculous situatuon of the palace being closed to the public for the majority of the year was changed then the costs of upkeep and maintenance could be covered through entry fees.

We are told the royals don't own Buckingham Palace yet they have consistently resisted opening arguably the most famous building in the country to tourists and the public.

[ronaldo7]

The tourism argument is nonsensical anyway. Does the idea that people would stop wanting to visit historical palaces etc if the monarchy was abolished really stand up to scrutiny?

The there's the 'contributions from the crown estates' argument which is also a load of nonsense when a bit analytical thinking is applied.

:agree: Around 500,000 people visited Betty's bothy, whilst in France, Millions visit the chateaux of Versailles. The tourist argument just doesn't hack it.

I liked this one though. https://t.co/zGnFz9CrNy

:faf:

[McD]

Children in Need and just about any other charity sponsered by the BBC are just as crooked as the Royal Family. They display the money "raised", but not the amount of money that is actually donated directly to the cause.



Would be really interesting to see how much the celebs involved donated. Or do they deem lending their 'status' and a little time to be doing enough?

not to mention, are any of them being paid? Wogan was happy enough to take his £70-80k a time for years until that became public knowledge.

[SHODAN]

It's amazing the number of excuses people can think up for our lack of democracy when it's a "British" lack of democracy.

[High-On-Hibs]

It's amazing the number of excuses people can think up for our lack of democracy when it's a "British" lack of democracy.

Well Scotland's still a part of Britain is it not? So if there's an issue with democracy here, then it's a British issue.

[One Day Soon]

Well Scotland's still a part of Britain is it not? So if there's an issue with democracy here, then it's a British issue.


Careful now...

[Betty Boop]

Makes you wonder why the SNP want to keep auld Lizzie ?

[One Day Soon]

Makes you wonder why the SNP want to keep auld Lizzie ?


Shameless opportunistic charlatanism?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Shameless opportunistic charlatanism?

No, its pragmatism. The royal family is a side issue to the independence debate, as a supporter of independence I wouldn't vote against the SNP because they stated Lizzy will be retained as head of state in an independent Scotland, but a lot of royalist forelock tuggers would be hard to win over if the first thing the independence movement said would happen is Lizzy getting the boot the day after we leave the UK.

I sincerely hope though that as soon as the glorious day arrives moves are put in place to flush the whole system down the pan and that anybody from the queen down to the lowest impoverished Laird is told in no uncertain terms that they have no position whatsoever in Scotland, apart from that of citizen if they qualify, and if they want to be called 'your royal highness', sir, ma'am, your grace, my lord or any other of the daft titles they have given themselves they will have to sod off to a country that still likes to live in the middle ages.

If it was up to me Buck hoose would be turned into a travel lodge.

[JeMeSouviens]

Makes you wonder why the SNP want to keep auld Lizzie ?

There is a decent chance of a Scottish Republic post-independence. There is absolutely zero chance of a UK republic any time for the foreseeable.

[ronaldo7]

No, its pragmatism. The royal family is a side issue to the independence debate, as a supporter of independence I wouldn't vote against the SNP because they stated Lizzy will be retained as head of state in an independent Scotland, but a lot of royalist forelock tuggers would be hard to win over if the first thing the independence movement said would happen is Lizzy getting the boot the day after we leave the UK.

I sincerely hope though that as soon as the glorious day arrives moves are put in place to flush the whole system down the pan and that anybody from the queen down to the lowest impoverished Laird is told in no uncertain terms that they have no position whatsoever in Scotland, apart from that of citizen if they qualify, and if they want to be called 'your royal highness', sir, ma'am, your grace, my lord or any other of the daft titles they have given themselves they will have to sod off to a country that still likes to live in the middle ages.

If it was up to me Buck hoose would be turned into a travel lodge.

Shameless, opportunist, Spotonism.:rockin:

As an Independent nation like say, Barbados, we could move to empty the swamp.:wink:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/barbados/11489936/Barbados-PM-says-island-will-replace-the-Queen-and-move-towards-republic.html

[One Day Soon]

No, its pragmatism. The royal family is a side issue to the independence debate, as a supporter of independence I wouldn't vote against the SNP because they stated Lizzy will be retained as head of state in an independent Scotland, but a lot of royalist forelock tuggers would be hard to win over if the first thing the independence movement said would happen is Lizzy getting the boot the day after we leave the UK.

I sincerely hope though that as soon as the glorious day arrives moves are put in place to flush the whole system down the pan and that anybody from the queen down to the lowest impoverished Laird is told in no uncertain terms that they have no position whatsoever in Scotland, apart from that of citizen if they qualify, and if they want to be called 'your royal highness', sir, ma'am, your grace, my lord or any other of the daft titles they have given themselves they will have to sod off to a country that still likes to live in the middle ages.

If it was up to me Buck hoose would be turned into a travel lodge.


So, basically lying to the electorate about what it really wants as regards the Queen and then reverting to reality as soon as the lies do the work of securing a majority for Independence.

That looks a lot like a textbook definition of shameless, opportunistic, charlatanism.

Isn't this the sort of dodgy, corrupt Westminster practice the SNP were supposed to be against once upon a time in a very distant past before reality set in?

[RyeSloan]

No, its pragmatism. The royal family is a side issue to the independence debate, as a supporter of independence I wouldn't vote against the SNP because they stated Lizzy will be retained as head of state in an independent Scotland, but a lot of royalist forelock tuggers would be hard to win over if the first thing the independence movement said would happen is Lizzy getting the boot the day after we leave the UK.

I sincerely hope though that as soon as the glorious day arrives moves are put in place to flush the whole system down the pan and that anybody from the queen down to the lowest impoverished Laird is told in no uncertain terms that they have no position whatsoever in Scotland, apart from that of citizen if they qualify, and if they want to be called 'your royal highness', sir, ma'am, your grace, my lord or any other of the daft titles they have given themselves they will have to sod off to a country that still likes to live in the middle ages.

If it was up to me Buck hoose would be turned into a travel lodge.

Ahh right so say one thing to get your way then go right ahead and do the opposite as soon as there is no going back...sounds more like deception rather than pragmatism!

[One Day Soon]

Ahh right so say one thing to get your way then go right ahead and do the opposite as soon as there is no going back...sounds more like deception rather than pragmatism!

****** me, this is getting really spooky...

[RyeSloan]

****** me, this is getting really spooky...

And rather concerning for all parties [emoji23]

[jonty]

for the balance of argument....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/luke-springthorpe/buckingham-palace-cost_b_13119164.html?


In fact, they’ve already paid for it six times over in the last ten years alone having paid £2.4 billion to the Treasury over that period. That’s money that’s gone towards paying for the NHS, schools and emergency services. In the last year alone, they handed over £304.1 million to the Exchequer.

Surely the ONS will have some facts, somewhere?

[Mon Dieu4]

for the balance of argument....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/luke-springthorpe/buckingham-palace-cost_b_13119164.html?



Surely the ONS will have some facts, somewhere?

That's not exactly balance, we all pay tax, can we all get our houses done up on the public purse strings to an equal percentage?

[jonty]

That's not exactly balance, we all pay tax, can we all get our houses done up on the public purse strings to an equal percentage?

we don't pay 85% tax. And there are plenty of grants available for home-owners.

I'm not advocating either way - it just seems, like most media nowadays, facts are lacking.

[Mon Dieu4]

we don't pay 85% tax. And there are plenty of grants available for home-owners.

I'm not advocating either way - it just seems, like most media nowadays, facts are lacking.

They don't pay 85% tax either, that's the percentage of the crown estate that goes to the treasury, it's a fact that she also owns every dolphin and swan in Britain, it's all out dated nonsense

I agree about the media however

[SHODAN]

No, its pragmatism. The royal family is a side issue to the independence debate, as a supporter of independence I wouldn't vote against the SNP because they stated Lizzy will be retained as head of state in an independent Scotland, but a lot of royalist forelock tuggers would be hard to win over if the first thing the independence movement said would happen is Lizzy getting the boot the day after we leave the UK.

I sincerely hope though that as soon as the glorious day arrives moves are put in place to flush the whole system down the pan and that anybody from the queen down to the lowest impoverished Laird is told in no uncertain terms that they have no position whatsoever in Scotland, apart from that of citizen if they qualify, and if they want to be called 'your royal highness', sir, ma'am, your grace, my lord or any other of the daft titles they have given themselves they will have to sod off to a country that still likes to live in the middle ages.

If it was up to me Buck hoose would be turned into a travel lodge.

A referendum on the monarchy/aristocracy would be a good idea. Going ahead and doing it is not.

[NAE NOOKIE]

So, basically lying to the electorate about what it really wants as regards the Queen and then reverting to reality as soon as the lies do the work of securing a majority for Independence.

That looks a lot like a textbook definition of shameless, opportunistic, charlatanism.

Isn't this the sort of dodgy, corrupt Westminster practice the SNP were supposed to be against once upon a time in a very distant past before reality set in?

Its an open secret that a fair number, if not the majority, of SNP MPs and MSPs are republican minded ..... but that's not the purpose of the party, its purpose is to campaign for an independent Scotland. As I said, the royals are a side issue, so why damage the cause by making it one? I doubt there is a political party on earth who would take a different approach.


Ahh right so say one thing to get your way then go right ahead and do the opposite as soon as there is no going back...sounds more like deception rather than pragmatism!

I would imagine that of all the issues that would affect Scotland after independence the question of who should be head of state above all others will go to some sort of referendum ..... I would say that anybody whose decision about whether Scotland should be independent or not is dependent on having a head of state put in place by accident of birth needs their bumps felt.

[Hiber-nation]

A wee protest song from the usually wonderful Nat Johnson. Not so keen on this one but a pretty clear message!

http://natjohnson.bandcamp.com/track/the-royal-flush

[snooky]

Would be really interesting to see how much the celebs involved donated. Or do they deem lending their 'status' and a little time to be doing enough?

not to mention, are any of them being paid? Wogan was happy enough to take his £70-80k a time for years until that became public knowledge.

Kinda made me sick when I heard that recently.
Never mind, last week they gave him a big tribute for his unpaid, oops sorry, paid work on all the shows for children in need.
What a man. :not worth (and a 'Sir' too - see post #26)

[--------]

There is a decent chance of a Scottish Republic post-independence. There is absolutely zero chance of a UK republic any time for the foreseeable.



Yup. It's a good principle not to jump your fences until you get to them.

I think any Scot who isn't aware that the position of the monarchy would be in question in the immediate aftermath of Scottish independence urgently needs to waken up and take some notice.

Betty won't live forever - even if she does seem to be making a really serious attempt to do so. Our next lord and master talks to trees and root vegetables, I believe.

The hereditary principle is no way to run a country.

[RyeSloan]

Yup. It's a good principle not to jump your fences until you get to them.

I think any Scot who isn't aware that the position of the monarchy would be in question in the immediate aftermath of Scottish independence urgently needs to waken up and take some notice.

Betty won't live forever - even if she does seem to be making a really serious attempt to do so. Our next lord and master talks to trees and root vegetables, I believe.

The hereditary principle is no way to run a country.

Just as well then that the country isn't run on the hereditary principle [emoji106]

[One Day Soon]

Its an open secret that a fair number, if not the majority, of SNP MPs and MSPs are republican minded ..... but that's not the purpose of the party, its purpose is to campaign for an independent Scotland. As I said, the royals are a side issue, so why damage the cause by making it one? I doubt there is a political party on earth who would take a different approach.



I would imagine that of all the issues that would affect Scotland after independence the question of who should be head of state above all others will go to some sort of referendum ..... I would say that anybody whose decision about whether Scotland should be independent or not is dependent on having a head of state put in place by accident of birth needs their bumps felt.


You might imagine that but Salmond actually said we would keep the Queen.

So basically we have to guess as to which SNP policy statements are real, which ones are completely untrue and which ones are just made-up flags of convenience purely to get people to vote for Independence?

Sort of makes it a little difficult to take seriously other SNP statements on, say, the size of Scotland's budget deficit and any potential future currency don't you think?

The next thing you know we won't be able to trust anything their Transport Minister tells us about the trains.

[ronaldo7]

You might imagine that but Salmond actually said we would keep the Queen.

So basically we have to guess as to which SNP policy statements are real, which ones are completely untrue and which ones are just made-up flags of convenience purely to get people to vote for Independence?

Sort of makes it a little difficult to take seriously other SNP statements on, say, the size of Scotland's budget deficit and any potential future currency don't you think?

The next thing you know we won't be able to trust anything their Transport Minister tells us about the trains.

17695

We could always go back to when Labour were in charge.

Auld Betty will be popping her clogs soon. I wonder if any of her two grandsons will be back from their fun tours of Canada, or the Caribbean to help out.

[Hibrandenburg]

Whether an independent Scotland would keep the monarchy or not would depend on where post referendum parties align themselves. I'd fully expect conservatives to back keeping it almost 100% and the other parties being divided pretty much down the middle.

[One Day Soon]

17695

We could always go back to when Labour were in charge.

Auld Betty will be popping her clogs soon. I wonder if any of her two grandsons will be back from their fun tours of Canada, or the Caribbean to help out.


Classic. Everything is awesome! :faf:

Be sure and send that brilliantly distorted bar chart to all the pissed off commuters whose trains are cancelled or late. I think they'll particularly enjoy seeing a 6% numerical difference shown in graphics that imply something like a 600% difference. Perhaps its author was a Lib-Dem in a previous life? And some people have the nerve to say the SNP just make it up as they go along, tsk tsk.

Q: Transport Minister, the trains are a nightmare. What are you going to do about it?

A: I'm not a transport expert. We'll nationalise them. No wait, we'll have a chat with everyone about nationalising them. Hang on, we'll give them a good talking to and hope they get better. Maybe we'll nationalise them. It's Westminster's fault. Does anyone know where Stewart Stevenson is? I'm a future leadership contender. Anyway, you should have seen them nine years ago. Look, a squirrel.

I'm racking my brains trying to remember who was good at making the trains run on time...

[ronaldo7]

Classic. Everything is awesome! :faf:

Be sure and send that brilliantly distorted bar chart to all the pissed off commuters whose trains are cancelled or late. I think they'll particularly enjoy seeing a 6% numerical difference shown in graphics that imply something like a 600% difference. Perhaps its author was a Lib-Dem in a previous life? And some people have the nerve to say the SNP just make it up as they go along, tsk tsk.

Q: Transport Minister, the trains are a nightmare. What are you going to do about it?

A: I'm not a transport expert. We'll nationalise them. No wait, we'll have a chat with everyone about nationalising them. Hang on, we'll give them a good talking to and hope they get better. Maybe we'll nationalise them. It's Westminster's fault. Does anyone know where Stewart Stevenson is? I'm a future leadership contender. Anyway, you should have seen them nine years ago. Look, a squirrel.

I'm racking my brains trying to remember who was good at making the trains run on time...

:tee hee: Still banging that old strapline out.

The thing is, the SG know it's not all sweetness and light, and are doing something about it.

When your lot were in power, the railways were going backwards. I thought you might have a go at SNPBAD on another matter, but having seen Iain Docherty's piece in the Herald, it seems you've picked another dud.

Now, let's get this thread back on course, and you can forget about coming in the bronze position in May. It seems to be getting to you:greengrin

Watch yer back or this guy will be pushing you into fourth.:wink:

17697

[One Day Soon]

:tee hee: Still banging that old strapline out.

The thing is, the SG know it's not all sweetness and light, and are doing something about it.

When your lot were in power, the railways were going backwards. I thought you might have a go at SNPBAD on another matter, but having seen Iain Docherty's piece in the Herald, it seems you've picked another dud.

Now, let's get this thread back on course, and you can forget about coming in the bronze position in May. It seems to be getting to you:greengrin

Watch yer back or this guy will be pushing you into fourth.:wink:

17697


It's your theme tune bud, banged out every time there's any criticism. The SNP's version of 'Simply the Best'.

Wee bit sensitive on the Humsa rail fiasco are we? I'm not surprised. It is very impressive that the SNP Govt have noticed it's not all sweetness and light - seeing as they've been running Scotland for the last 9 and a half years. Still, better late than never. Sort of like the trains I suppose.

I couldn't care less who comes in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the May elections - because at the minute they're all crap. But then I'm not a Party hack tied into defending the Party's position at all costs. My vote is up for grabs.

[NAE NOOKIE]

You might imagine that but Salmond actually said we would keep the Queen.

So basically we have to guess as to which SNP policy statements are real, which ones are completely untrue and which ones are just made-up flags of convenience purely to get people to vote for Independence?

Sort of makes it a little difficult to take seriously other SNP statements on, say, the size of Scotland's budget deficit and any potential future currency don't you think?

The next thing you know we won't be able to trust anything their Transport Minister tells us about the trains.

I doubt saying we would keep the queen would get folk to actually vote for independence, but not saying her erse is oot the windae post the vote is more likely to create less waves in certain circles. When Salmond said that AFAIK he was still SNP leader ... he has since been supplanted by the much more openly republican Sturgeon.

Whatever the case as I said the question of whether to keep an unelected head of state ridiculously put in place by birth right in the event that Scotland did become independent would 100% be decided by a referendum ... it would be political suicide for any party in power, no matter who it was, to arbitrarily make the decision because they would open the door to reactionary action by the usual suspects, especially those of the FTP we arru peepul persuasion, but not just them. If the matter was decided by public vote you would probably still get a backlash from the more fervent royalist supporters, but it would be a lot harder if not impossible for them to justify any actions short of moaning on Facebook.

As for the rest of your post ..... Sorry mate but you are wasting your breath trying to bash me over the head with your razor like insight into how the SNP run the country, some things they have done well, some things they have not done so well, like every political party they have their faults. I have voted for them since the 70s because they were the only political party dedicated to the cause of Scottish independence and that is something dear to my heart, it doesn't mean I will agree with every move they make in power and in the case of independence being achieved I would fully expect the party to fragment into whatever the individual MPs MSPs and ordinary members driving political mindset is without the uniting cause of independence to hold them together.

As for the trains ...... I don't know the ins and outs of how the rail network runs, though I am aware from events last week that the first minister is apparently to blame for an individual train breaking down and has to answer for it in the Holyrood chamber. The other thing I know is that through a number of Tory and Labour British and Scottish administrations I wasn't able to get a train from Galashiels to Edinburgh and now I can :greengrin

Its also the case that a much needed 2nd road crossing over the Forth is nearing completion and that instead of grudgingly accepting that something has been achieved the folk who will bash the SNP no matter what they do made a big issue of the fact that steel from a plant that didn't actually produce the type of steel the bridge needed wasn't used in its construction.

It might be the case that the SNP don't always achieve what they say they want to and it might even be the case that that's the result of poor planning, decision making or whatever .... but as far as I can see that doesn't set them apart from every other political party. I seem to remember the Tories and Labour saying that only staying in the union would guarantee our membership of the EU ... remind me how that went again.

Anyway ... all of this is a different argument and I'm not sure why folk, including me, are allowing you to draw them into it. The subject under discussion is the royal family and it doesn't matter if the country is being run by the SNP the Tories or an invading force of space aliens .... Having a head of state put in place by right of birth is a ridiculous concept in the 21st century and is indefensible.

[ronaldo7]

It's your theme tune bud, banged out every time there's any criticism. The SNP's version of 'Simply the Best'.

Wee bit sensitive on the Humsa rail fiasco are we? I'm not surprised. It is very impressive that the SNP Govt have noticed it's not all sweetness and light - seeing as they've been running Scotland for the last 9 and a half years. Still, better late than never. Sort of like the trains I suppose.

I couldn't care less who comes in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the May elections - because at the minute they're all crap. But then I'm not a Party hack tied into defending the Party's position at all costs. My vote is up for grabs.

Ah, you're a floater, thought as much.:aok:

[Edinburgher]

Vive la (future) republique of Scotland.

[ronaldo7]

Whilst MP's discuss punishing folk for wearing medals, this charlatan masquerades in his fancy dress. He dropped out of the marines during training.

17699

[One Day Soon]

It's your theme tune bud, banged out every time there's any criticism. The SNP's version of 'Simply the Best'.

Wee bit sensitive on the Humsa rail fiasco are we? I'm not surprised. It is very impressive that the SNP Govt have noticed it's not all sweetness and light - seeing as they've been running Scotland for the last 9 and a half years. Still, better late than never. Sort of like the trains I suppose.

I couldn't care less who comes in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the May elections - because at the minute they're all crap. But then I'm not a Party hack tied into defending the Party's position at all costs. My vote is up for grabs.

Ah, you're a floater, thought as much.:aok:


Top notch CyberNat posting of the highest order.

[One Day Soon]

I doubt saying we would keep the queen would get folk to actually vote for independence, but not saying her erse is oot the windae post the vote is more likely to create less waves in certain circles. When Salmond said that AFAIK he was still SNP leader ... he has since been supplanted by the much more openly republican Sturgeon.

So are the SNP still in favour of keeping the Queen as Head of State post-independence?

Whatever the case as I said the question of whether to keep an unelected head of state ridiculously put in place by birth right in the event that Scotland did become independent would 100% be decided by a referendum ... it would be political suicide for any party in power, no matter who it was, to arbitrarily make the decision because they would open the door to reactionary action by the usual suspects, especially those of the FTP we arru peepul persuasion, but not just them. If the matter was decided by public vote you would probably still get a backlash from the more fervent royalist supporters, but it would be a lot harder if not impossible for them to justify any actions short of moaning on Facebook.

As for the rest of your post ..... Sorry mate but you are wasting your breath trying to bash me over the head with your razor like insight into how the SNP run the country, some things they have done well, some things they have not done so well, like every political party they have their faults. I have voted for them since the 70s because they were the only political party dedicated to the cause of Scottish independence and that is something dear to my heart, it doesn't mean I will agree with every move they make in power and in the case of independence being achieved I would fully expect the party to fragment into whatever the individual MPs MSPs and ordinary members driving political mindset is without the uniting cause of independence to hold them together.

Sounds like you will vote for the SNP regardless of how they perform in Government? Perfectly reasonable if you rate getting independence above everything else.

As for the trains ...... I don't know the ins and outs of how the rail network runs, though I am aware from events last week that the first minister is apparently to blame for an individual train breaking down and has to answer for it in the Holyrood chamber. The other thing I know is that through a number of Tory and Labour British and Scottish administrations I wasn't able to get a train from Galashiels to Edinburgh and now I can :greengrin

The Borders Railway proposal was commenced under a Lab/Lib coalition Govt in Scotland (and supported by all other parties I think) and then built by the SNP Government (again supported by all other parties I think). So, credit to them all I suppose. As for anything that is currently going well or badly in Scotland I think we can safely say it is almost all down to the SNP either way - after all they've been in power long enough for a generation of kids to have gone into and then come out of their entire Primary School education.

Its also the case that a much needed 2nd road crossing over the Forth is nearing completion and that instead of grudgingly accepting that something has been achieved the folk who will bash the SNP no matter what they do made a big issue of the fact that steel from a plant that didn't actually produce the type of steel the bridge needed wasn't used in its construction.

It might be the case that the SNP don't always achieve what they say they want to and it might even be the case that that's the result of poor planning, decision making or whatever .... but as far as I can see that doesn't set them apart from every other political party. I seem to remember the Tories and Labour saying that only staying in the union would guarantee our membership of the EU ... remind me how that went again.

I agree. All the political parties are equally crap.

Anyway ... all of this is a different argument and I'm not sure why folk, including me, are allowing you to draw them into it. The subject under discussion is the royal family and it doesn't matter if the country is being run by the SNP the Tories or an invading force of space aliens .... Having a head of state put in place by right of birth is a ridiculous concept in the 21st century and is indefensible.


I'm not sure I agree with that. It is a ridiculous concept - but I'd certainly prefer the non-political Queen as Head of State to any one of Gordon Brown, William Hague, Nick Clegg, Alex Salmond or Nigel Farage. Another political layer of government? No thanks.

I think the Queen or King as Head of State and the House of Lords are things that are utterly ridiculous. You wouldn't set them up if they weren't already there. I also think we'd probably come to regret it hugely if we replaced them with more elected politicians. It's a bit like the Winston Churchill thing: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'.

Mind you he also said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Amen to that.

[ronaldo7]

It's your theme tune bud, banged out every time there's any criticism. The SNP's version of 'Simply the Best'.

Wee bit sensitive on the Humsa rail fiasco are we? I'm not surprised. It is very impressive that the SNP Govt have noticed it's not all sweetness and light - seeing as they've been running Scotland for the last 9 and a half years. Still, better late than never. Sort of like the trains I suppose.

I couldn't care less who comes in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the May elections - because at the minute they're all crap. But then I'm not a Party hack tied into defending the Party's position at all costs. My vote is up for grabs.

Ah, you're a floater, thought as much.:aok:


It's your theme tune bud, banged out every time there's any criticism. The SNP's version of 'Simply the Best'.

Wee bit sensitive on the Humsa rail fiasco are we? I'm not surprised. It is very impressive that the SNP Govt have noticed it's not all sweetness and light - seeing as they've been running Scotland for the last 9 and a half years. Still, better late than never. Sort of like the trains I suppose.

I couldn't care less who comes in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th in the May elections - because at the minute they're all crap. But then I'm not a Party hack tied into defending the Party's position at all costs. My vote is up for grabs.


[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4865807]


Top notch CyberNat posting of the highest order.

Come on now 1DS, you're not the International socialist, you make yourself out to be?

You're vote is up for grabs...Your words, nobody else's. Red Tories, Real Tories, what will it be this year.:faf:

Nothing wrong with that, people move their votes around all the time, it's just that when someone is playing the International socialist card on here, then you'd think their vote would be confined to that movement, and not ready to be bought by the capitalist movement, or when the Henry Jackson society shows their knickers, you swoon and sign on the dotted line.

Who'd a thunk it eh. Your games up.

Remember now, your votes up for grabs. A parcel of rogues, right enough.

17702 Yer Bro.:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4865807]



QUOTE=One Day Soon;4866355

Come on now 1DS, you're not the International socialist, you make yourself out to be?

You're vote is up for grabs...Your words, nobody else's. Red Tories, Real Tories, what will it be this year.:faf:

Nothing wrong with that, people move their votes around all the time, it's just that when someone is playing the International socialist card on here, then you'd think their vote would be confined to that movement, and not ready to be bought by the capitalist movement, or when the Henry Jackson society shows their knickers, you swoon and sign on the dotted line.

Who'd a thunk it eh. Your games up.

Remember now, your votes up for grabs. A parcel of rogues, right enough.

17702 Yer Bro.:wink:


You're getting a bit personal with ODS there, it's not why most people choose to debate on here. It's about playing the ball, not the man.

I seem to remember however,that you posted on here that you had only 'converted' to the SNP a couple of years back.

You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4866505]


You're getting a bit personal with ODS there, it's not why most people choose to debate on here. It's about playing the ball, not the man.

I seem to remember however,that you posted on here that you had only 'converted' to the SNP a couple of years back.

You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

When Labour moved right, I stayed where I was. Green or SNP, and I decided to join the SNP, not the Tories.:wink:

I asked 1DS to get the thread back on track, but he seemed to want to continue with the "Cybernat" theme. Up to him I suppose.

[One Day Soon]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4865807]



[QUOTE=One Day Soon;4866355]

Come on now 1DS, you're not the International socialist, you make yourself out to be?

You're vote is up for grabs...Your words, nobody else's. Red Tories, Real Tories, what will it be this year.:faf:

Nothing wrong with that, people move their votes around all the time, it's just that when someone is playing the International socialist card on here, then you'd think their vote would be confined to that movement, and not ready to be bought by the capitalist movement, or when the Henry Jackson society shows their knickers, you swoon and sign on the dotted line.

Who'd a thunk it eh. Your games up.

Remember now, your votes up for grabs. A parcel of rogues, right enough.

17702 Yer Bro.:wink:


When you posted saying about me: "Ah, you're a floater, thought as much." what were you implying? If it had been political you surely would would have referred to a floating voter? Now you've posted the above stream of consciousness.

It's all straight from the CyberNat playbook. Defend the SNP at any cost regardless of circumstance or logic and when that doesn't work, well we see what comes next don't we?

Perhaps you should stick to regurgitating SNP propaganda.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I'm not sure I agree with that. It is a ridiculous concept - but I'd certainly prefer the non-political Queen as Head of State to any one of Gordon Brown, William Hague, Nick Clegg, Alex Salmond or Nigel Farage. Another political layer of government? No thanks.

I think the Queen or King as Head of State and the House of Lords are things that are utterly ridiculous. You wouldn't set them up if they weren't already there. I also think we'd probably come to regret it hugely if we replaced them with more elected politicians. It's a bit like the Winston Churchill thing: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'.

Mind you he also said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Amen to that.

As the very pinnacle of the old school tie system the queen is far from being non political .... She may not be able to express a preference, but who but the most deluded would argue that she is sympathetic to any party that promotes the cause of the monarchy and by definition any party that is best placed to stop her and her successors 'birth right' being diluted or taken away.

She might not be openly 'political' but the guy waiting to fill her shoes certainly cant make that claim, he uses his position to try to influence everything from the GM crops argument to town planning ..... so much so that his interference caused a firm of architects in London to go bust when pressure from him against a building they were to design lost them the account resulting in folk losing their jobs. Its no wonder the royal family have fought so hard to supress publication of his never ending stream of letters to government ministers .... who knows what damage he will cause when he becomes CEO of House of Windsor Ltd.

The question of whether the House of lords works or doesn't is immaterial. Its not acceptable in any circumstances to have an allegedly democratic system where the will of an elected government ( any elected government ) can be delayed or even circumvented by people whose only qualification to do so is to have fallen out of the right set of lady parts.
Its even worse to pretend that you live in a secular or multi faith society where everybody is treated equally and then appoint 26 people to positions of power merely because they happen to be Bishops of the Church of England. I would claim to be religious to a reasonable extent, but I firmly believe Church and state should be separate entities.

Because of the way the House of lords is structured to give it a majority of government appointed, as opposed to hereditary, peers we have the ludicrous situation of more and more peers being created as each party battles to maintain a balance, which means it costs more and more to keep the bloody place going.

Look at this country ..... Far too many positions of power are held by Lord this and sir that and if they aren't born that way we have a system where people who make it to positions of power are drawn into the club by being awarded peerages and knighthoods. What's worse is that there is no doubt that far too many people in public life or business who should know better wont rock the political or social boat for fear of upsetting the 'establishment' risking the peerage or knighthood they so desperately crave being denied to them. Even if that's not the case a system which can promote such a perception is wrong.

Power to the people !!! :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

You're getting a bit personal with ODS there, it's not why most people choose to debate on here. It's about playing the ball, not the man.

I seem to remember however,that you posted on here that you had only 'converted' to the SNP a couple of years back.

You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite would you?

**** me, the Chief Officer of Hibs.net Sanctimony rides again. :rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

I doubt saying we would keep the queen would get folk to actually vote for independence, but not saying her erse is oot the windae post the vote is more likely to create less waves in certain circles. When Salmond said that AFAIK he was still SNP leader ... he has since been supplanted by the much more openly republican Sturgeon.

Whatever the case as I said the question of whether to keep an unelected head of state ridiculously put in place by birth right in the event that Scotland did become independent would 100% be decided by a referendum ... it would be political suicide for any party in power, no matter who it was, to arbitrarily make the decision because they would open the door to reactionary action by the usual suspects, especially those of the FTP we arru peepul persuasion, but not just them. If the matter was decided by public vote you would probably still get a backlash from the more fervent royalist supporters, but it would be a lot harder if not impossible for them to justify any actions short of moaning on Facebook.

As for the rest of your post ..... Sorry mate but you are wasting your breath trying to bash me over the head with your razor like insight into how the SNP run the country, some things they have done well, some things they have not done so well, like every political party they have their faults. I have voted for them since the 70s because they were the only political party dedicated to the cause of Scottish independence and that is something dear to my heart, it doesn't mean I will agree with every move they make in power and in the case of independence being achieved I would fully expect the party to fragment into whatever the individual MPs MSPs and ordinary members driving political mindset is without the uniting cause of independence to hold them together.

As for the trains ...... I don't know the ins and outs of how the rail network runs, though I am aware from events last week that the first minister is apparently to blame for an individual train breaking down and has to answer for it in the Holyrood chamber. The other thing I know is that through a number of Tory and Labour British and Scottish administrations I wasn't able to get a train from Galashiels to Edinburgh and now I can :greengrin

Its also the case that a much needed 2nd road crossing over the Forth is nearing completion and that instead of grudgingly accepting that something has been achieved the folk who will bash the SNP no matter what they do made a big issue of the fact that steel from a plant that didn't actually produce the type of steel the bridge needed wasn't used in its construction.

It might be the case that the SNP don't always achieve what they say they want to and it might even be the case that that's the result of poor planning, decision making or whatever .... but as far as I can see that doesn't set them apart from every other political party. I seem to remember the Tories and Labour saying that only staying in the union would guarantee our membership of the EU ... remind me how that went again.

Anyway ... all of this is a different argument and I'm not sure why folk, including me, are allowing you to draw them into it. The subject under discussion is the royal family and it doesn't matter if the country is being run by the SNP the Tories or an invading force of space aliens .... Having a head of state put in place by right of birth is a ridiculous concept in the 21st century and is indefensible.

Neither do the Tories, it seems.

https://t.co/YMXjwCuenj