hibs.net Messageboard

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 80 of 80
  1. #61
    Coaching Staff Haymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Chatham, NJ, USA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    9,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Surely all currency with the queen's head on it will become illegal tender from the moment she pegged it. That's what we have been told about day one for Scottish independence after all.
    Possibly. It'll certainly become collectable!


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Haymaker View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Money with her face on it I meant . The mint has Charles and William etc already ready to print.
    Oh aye. Stamps anaw. Not sure if pillarboxes (aye real pillarboxes, not Johnsonian analogies) still have monarch's initials on, but in any case that would only be for new boxes, not existing ones.
    Last edited by lapsedhibee; 14-08-2019 at 07:29 AM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by lapsedhibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Oh aye. Stamps anaw. Not sure if pillarboxes (aye real pillarboxes, not Johnsonian analogies) still have monarch's initials on, but in any case that would only be for new boxes, not existing ones.
    There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.
    PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

  5. #64
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    13,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.

    From Wiki

    In 1952, a number of post boxes were attacked in Scotland in a dispute over the regnal number adopted by Queen Elizabeth II, which was displayed as the EIIR cypher on the boxes. This included at least one which was damaged in Edinburgh with a home made explosive device.
    The compromise was to put the Scottish crown on Scottish pillar boxes, without any reference to the particular reigning monarch
    #Persevered
    Scotland can be a beacon, within these islands and beyond, for a socially just and sustainable society. Whilst there are many priorities which will require independence, there is also much that can and must be done now by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

  6. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.
    There's still a few Queen Victoria ones on the go like this one on Arran:



    When I was a kid in the 70s you still saw George VI and even George V coins knocking about. The shillings became worth 5p and the 2 shilling florins became worth 10p. So Lizzy coins may be on the go for a good bit after she's gone.

  7. #66
    Coaching Staff NAE NOOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Galashiels
    Posts
    11,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith_M View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    When MPs and MSPs take office, they have to officially declare an oath of allegiance to Queen Betty and make a vow to serve her.

    How utterly idiotic is that.

    I think I'll switch to being German, as they don't officially have a monarchy (though they are obsessed with the Saxe-Coburgs)
    It is this perpetuation of the myth that loyalty to ones country and loyalty to the monarchy are one and the same and indivisible, that you cannot be patriotic about your country if you don't believe it is embodied in the persona of the monarch.

    Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.

    Any oath required of anyone who is a servant of the people should be to those people, not some ridiculous figurehead whose position is the very embodiment of the feudalism and despotic power our hard earned democratic rights were supposed to do away with.

  8. #67
    @hibs.net private member danhibees1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    27
    Posts
    9,574
    Quote Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It is this perpetuation of the myth that loyalty to ones country and loyalty to the monarchy are one and the same and indivisible, that you cannot be patriotic about your country if you don't believe it is embodied in the persona of the monarch.

    Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.

    Any oath required of anyone who is a servant of the people should be to those people, not some ridiculous figurehead whose position is the very embodiment of the feudalism and despotic power our hard earned democratic rights were supposed to do away with.
    So you're on the fence then.

    I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.

    Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.
    Mon the Hibs.

  9. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by danhibees1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you're on the fence then.

    I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.

    Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.
    Whilst not entirely relevant to the Queen actually being put on trial there was a bit of a 'crisis' during the Paul Burrell case when it was suggested the Queen could be a crucial witness due to a private meeting she had held with him some years earlier. It had already been decided Prince Charles and Prince William wouldn't be called as witnesses.

    As it turned out the Queen, Price Charles and Prince Philip had a 'private' conversation in the back of a car that was very conveniently overheard and 'brought to the attention' of the Police and subsequently the case collapsed.
    PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

  10. #69
    @hibs.net private member speedy_gonzales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,799
    Quote Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.
    Where do you stand on the matter of swearing an oath to the Almighty?!?

  11. #70
    First Team Breakthrough
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whilst not entirely relevant to the Queen actually being put on trial there was a bit of a 'crisis' during the Paul Burrell case when it was suggested the Queen could be a crucial witness due to a private meeting she had held with him some years earlier. It had already been decided Prince Charles and Prince William wouldn't be called as witnesses.

    As it turned out the Queen, Price Charles and Prince Philip had a 'private' conversation in the back of a car that was very conveniently overheard and 'brought to the attention' of the Police and subsequently the case collapsed.

    It was an impossible position Burrell put her in.

    In England the prosecutor is R ie Rex or Regina. She would have had to defend herself against herself, so to speak.

    Burell was a knave, in the true sense of the word. An utter cad.

  12. #71
    Coaching Staff NAE NOOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Galashiels
    Posts
    11,299
    Quote Originally Posted by danhibees1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you're on the fence then.

    I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.

    Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.
    For me an oath is more than just empty words and I would not swear allegiance to any person or organisation I fundamentally disagree with, no matter how purely ceremonial it was purported to be. The following is a quote from parliament's own web site … hardly ceremonial is it?

    "Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are common in British public life. They are similar to a declaration of loyalty to the state.
    Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
    MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so.
    The same rule applies to Members of the Lords"

    MPs can 'affirm' rather than take an oath … but that affirmation still involves basically submitting to an acknowledgment that they owe allegiance and loyalty to the queen and her successors, so its no different, as the following quote from the same website shows:

    "I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law".
    Last edited by NAE NOOKIE; 15-08-2019 at 11:50 AM.

  13. #72
    Coaching Staff NAE NOOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Galashiels
    Posts
    11,299
    Quote Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Where do you stand on the matter of swearing an oath to the Almighty?!?
    That should be personal choice. AFAIK in court a person can choose to 'affirm' rather than swear on the bible for example, lets face it the majority of people in this country are either atheist or at best agnostics and many people who are religious don't follow Christian religions. As I posted in reply to Danhibees1875 MPs can choose to 'affirm' but that oath still involves swearing loyalty to the queen which renders it pointless.

  14. #73
    @hibs.net private member danhibees1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    27
    Posts
    9,574
    Quote Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For me an oath is more than just empty words and I would not swear allegiance to any person or organisation I fundamentally disagree with, no matter how purely ceremonial it was purported to be. The following is a quote from parliament's own web site Ö hardly ceremonial is it?

    "Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are common in British public life. They are similar to a declaration of loyalty to the state.
    Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
    MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant ďas if they were deadĒ if they attempted to do so.
    The same rule applies to Members of the Lords"

    MPs can 'affirm' rather than take an oath Ö but that affirmation still involves basically submitting to an acknowledgment that they owe allegiance and loyalty to the queen and her successors, so its no different, as the following quote from the same website shows:

    "I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law".
    I wouldn't expect them to say that "the oath is relatively meaningless and just a nice jolly for the MPs to celebrate their election with finger sandwiches and scones while reciting some words."

    They paint it up to be important but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything. Have there been any elected MPs decide they'd rather not have the chance to affect change because they don't want to say the oath?

  15. #74
    Coaching Staff NAE NOOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Galashiels
    Posts
    11,299
    Quote Originally Posted by danhibees1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wouldn't expect them to say that "the oath is relatively meaningless and just a nice jolly for the MPs to celebrate their election with finger sandwiches and scones while reciting some words."

    They paint it up to be important but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything. Have there been any elected MPs decide they'd rather not have the chance to affect change because they don't want to say the oath?
    At least 6 in Northern Ireland .. though I appreciate that is only part of a wider issue of declaring allegiance to the UK at all

    Anyway, it doesn't matter .. people are being in effect forced to go against their principles and if they don't they will be denied their right as elected representatives of 'the people' to sit in parliament and represent the folk who elected them. That my friend is an affront to democracy no matter how you slice it.

  16. #75
    @hibs.net private member McD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Livingston
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That should be personal choice. AFAIK in court a person can choose to 'affirm' rather than swear on the bible for example, lets face it the majority of people in this country are either atheist or at best agnostics and many people who are religious don't follow Christian religions. As I posted in reply to Danhibees1875 MPs can choose to 'affirm' but that oath still involves swearing loyalty to the queen which renders it pointless.

    Thanks for this, Iíve occasionally wondered what happened with people who followed a non Christian faith or atheist when in court. Cheers

  17. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by McD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thanks for this, Iíve occasionally wondered what happened with people who followed a non Christian faith or atheist when in court. Cheers
    It's an affirmation and you solemly swear to tell the truth.

  18. #77
    @hibs.net private member danhibees1875's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    27
    Posts
    9,574
    Quote Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    At least 6 in Northern Ireland .. though I appreciate that is only part of a wider issue of declaring allegiance to the UK at all

    Anyway, it doesn't matter .. people are being in effect forced to go against their principles and if they don't they will be denied their right as elected representatives of 'the people' to sit in parliament and represent the folk who elected them. That my friend is an affront to democracy no matter how you slice it.
    They are being forced to do something yes, and it's something I'd do away with/make optional personally. If there's any mandatory oath it should be to their constituents as you said. I just don't think it would get in the way of anyone doing their job or make them do it differently.

    Anyway, this thread ruined my viewing of The Lion King.
    Mon the Hibs.

  19. #78
    Private Members Prediction League Winner Hibrandenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brandenburg
    Posts
    11,067
    Quote Originally Posted by danhibees1875 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They are being forced to do something yes, and it's something I'd do away with/make optional personally. If there's any mandatory oath it should be to their constituents as you said. I just don't think it would get in the way of anyone doing their job or make them do it differently.

    Anyway, this thread ruined my viewing of The Lion King.
    I've taken 2 oaths. The first one to the queen where I had my fingers crossed:

    "I... swear by Almighty God*(do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm)*that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty*Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the*(admirals / generals/ air officers)*and officers set over me."

    and the 2nd one:

    "I solemnly declare that I will respect and observe the Basic Law and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and that I will refrain from any activity which might cause it harm."

    Oaths are really meaningless unless you actually believe what you're buying into. How many people have taken marriage vows but end up breaking them.
    Last edited by Hibrandenburg; 16-08-2019 at 08:40 AM.

  20. #79
    @hibs.net private member Fife-Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cramond
    Posts
    4,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've taken 2 oaths. The first one to the queen where I had my fingers crossed:

    "I... swear by Almighty God*(do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm)*that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty*Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the*(admirals / generals/ air officers)*and officers set over me."

    and the 2nd one:

    "I solemnly declare that I will respect and observe the Basic Law and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and that I will refrain from any activity which might cause it harm."

    Oaths are really meaningless unless you actually believe what you're buying into. How many people have taken marriage vows but under up breaking them.
    Indeed. Lest we forget those "vows" from 2014. A "vow" is utterly meaningless.

  21. #80
    Can't we just guillotine them already?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved