09 Jul 2010
Here’s another email from our “I’m a monarchist” page, where David attempts to defend the monarchy and their expenses. My replies are after each of David’s points:
Just a quick’un – I’m in favour of the monarchy and think their expenses are acceptable because (in no particular order):
1. They can award honours and titles – MBE, OBE, KCB etc. Some people care about these, and it’s a very powerful tool for getting stuff done. It would lose an awful lot of its power if they were awarded by the government.
Are you suggesting that the monarchy should have power, or that it does have power? And what power do you think is exercised by the monarch in return for issuing honours and titles? Moreover, while the honours system is nominally centred on the monarch, it is well known that it is the politicians who grant the awards (hence the whole question of “cash for coronets” a few years back).
This point doesn’t really make any sense without further elaboration, but I’d be willing to guess if wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny even then.
2. Our politicians, ostensibly in charge of the nation, are mostly interested in their own re-elections, making it more difficult for them to make the tough decisions that often need to be made. The monarch’s interests will be for the long term prosperity of the nation.
This comment presumes that the monarch makes tough decisions, helped by the fact she is unaccountable for those decisions. That clearly isn’t supported by the facts. While the monarch retains some residual power and too much potential for influence the ‘tough’ decisions are clearly being made by government, by elected politicians.
If that weren’t the case it would be an outrage against democracy greater than the monarchy already is. ‘Tough decisions’ need to be made by the people and their representatives, and those who make those decisions must be accountable for them.
Finally, the lack of accountability of a public office does not in anway ensure that the office holder takes an interest in the long term prosperity of the nation. That would be an argument for dictatorship, yet most dictatorships have shown that the long term interests of a nation are served by greater accountability, transparency and democracy.
3. There is a whole grey world of influence with roots back to the monarchy. When the wheels of government are stuck in a muddy trench, it’s one of the few informal ways this country has of getting them going again.
This statement is typical of a particular kind of monarchist argument, one based on fantasy and wishful thinking. I would ask you to support this with evidence or concrete examples. I would also ask you to justify this state of affairs – were it to exist – where a “grey world of influence” can hold sway over our democratic political processes.
4. Kids these days seem to have lost respect for their elders. The press seems to have lost respect for anyone but themselves. I suspect the two points are related. A respected monarchy makes a good example to kids about respect.
Kids these days are living in a country that has a monarchy, and which has had the same monarch for almost sixty years. So clearly this argument doesn’t stack up. You’re basically saying: “What we need is a good role model to inspire respect, we need a monarch, because the kids are currently lacking that role model.” But we have a monarch. So what’s gone wrong here?
I’m not going to get on my soap box any more than I already have, especially to an unreceptive audience.
We pay them a tiny amount of money in comparison to our GDP. The benefit, to my mind, completely outweighs the cost.
Yet you’ve not offered any examples of benefits that make any sense. The cost as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant, as that would also justify or excuse MPs’ expenses or the over-use of government advisers and consultants. What we really need to know is this: can we have a better form of head of state (one that’s more useful, effective, democratic and accountable) for less money. The answer is a clear ‘yes’.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 9th, 2010 at 12:44 am and is filed under monarchist. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 9th, 2010 at 10:55 am
This reminds me of an old political joke from Malaysia, where the monarch is elected from among the nobility every five years, yet political power has remained in the hands of the United Malay Nations Organization;
In England, they’ve had the same monarch since the 1950s and elect a new government every 5 years.
In Malaysia, they elect the monarch every 5 years, but they’ve had the same government since the 1950s.
Monarchy is no guarantor of democracy, rather, it’s the opposite – the pinnacle of corrupt class privelege.
July 9th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@ David
“I’m not going to get on my soap box any more than I already have, especially to an unreceptive audience.”
I think that is the opposite of reality.
Many (if not most or almost all) republicans ARE a receptive audience. A very receptive audience.
Speaking for myself, I have looked at the evidence, done plenty of reading, listening and discussing and have come up with a conclusion that I believe is based on facts and my opinion of those facts.
My faith in my belief is not so fickle that the odd dissident, no matter how genuine, misguided or opinionated, will not shake that belief unless evidence is brought and tested that supports the contrary.
I would therefore urge David and other monarchists to carry on posting their contributions in order that we can examine and contest each others’ views in the interest of openness and learning.
If there are any good reasons why we should remain a monarchy, let’s hear them and debate them. The points that have been raised in favour of monarchy so far seem to based on untruths, legends, truisms and spin.
July 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I agree with Republic supporter, Veg!
” Veg Vehj once we get an republic, then abolish da state. no gods no masters. heard that bbc pish on today yest morn n aw. fkn reruns”
Compelling and incisive indeed.
July 9th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Bruno, What on earth does all that nonsense mean ? !!!!
July 9th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Reminds me of some of the “reasons” given by my work mates in support for the monarchy.
They too, make unsupported statements about the benefits of HRH and co. When I demand evidence or examples they say I’m too obsessed with facts and figures.
I’ll respect anyones’ point of view provided they can give solid evidential foundation to their claims, but anyone that just spouts off something that they read in the Sun deserves to be lampooned on a daily basis.
I pity the Monarchist.
July 9th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
They all mindlessly parrot the establishment official line, the same myths we’re all taught from birth, (the monarchy brings in tourism revenue, it’s cheap at the price, the queen protects democracy, the queen keeps politicians in their place etc. etc. etc.). Sometimes, arguing the republican cause is like shoveling you know what against the tide but every now and again there’s a small victory to be had when someone actually cottons on, and that’s what encourages me.
July 9th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
“4. Kids these days seem to have lost respect for their elders. The press seems to have lost respect for anyone but themselves. I suspect the two points are related. A respected monarchy makes a good example to kids about respect.”
Why should I respect an elder? You seem to be saying that the criteria for respect is based on when they born. Where do I draw the line then? What if if they were born the day before me? Should I respect them more than they respect me?
I respect those that give respect. I don’t care how old they are.
As I have said before, the Monarchist subconsciously defers to those that his conditioned prejudice holds in high regard. Be it because they older than him or because they talk down to him. He doesn’t know why he does it, he just does. The reasoning that will allow him to break free of his chains is within his grasp. He is too frightened though, and prefers, instead, to spout rubbish he read the day before in the Sun of the Telegraph. This then justifys his weakness and he no longer has to look in the mirror and see a weak man.
July 9th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Graham, I’m a Republican but some claims made in your Win the argument section need clarifying
“In terms of immediate and urgent issues it is fair to say that some things need to be dealt with more urgently than the monarchy.”
What things and why? I would suggest that there are always “things” that could be classified as more urgent.
“There are lots of reasons why the monarchy does this country harm, most of which are outlined on this website.”
What reasons? I’m sure they are outlined but [perhaps a section on why the monarchy does us harm would be good.
“Finally, if the monarchy does want to claim credit for the British economy, they must also take the blame when it goes wrong.”
Excellent point and should be driven home now more than ever.
“turnout in this country is not down due to a lack of interest, it is down due to a lack of democracy.”
Well, not too many turn out for general and local elections so this point needs expanding.
“Let’s repeat the important point here: this is blatant spin. No other public expense is justified by dividing it among the total population. If it were then almost any government expenditure could be spun as ‘cheap’.”
Excellent point
“The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise her powers through the Privy Council.”
Which powers and how does this effect us?
July 9th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
We have to make the Monarchy and Monarchists in general as socially unacceptable as benefit cheats.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Rob, best to do that by email rather than on this post. Always happy to get feedback on the site.
July 11th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
The word ‘democracy’ has been used in this article a number of times suggesting that the monarch heads our democratic system and thus protects our democracy. Nothing can be further from the truth. Everything connected with The Queen is secret and in the case of her secret Honours and Decorations Committee democracy is interfered with and denied to British citizens. The Honours and Decorations Committee was set up to advise the sovereign on medals, awards, and honours and it is Chaired by the Cabinet Secretary (the Head of the Home Civil Service) and the Queen’s Private Secretary is a member. In 2001 this committee of unelected civil servants awarded themselves the authority to implement Rules on the acceptance and wear of foreign awards which stated that no UK citizen was allowed to accept and WEAR a foreign award without the authority of HM. These rules were not placed before our elected parliament and they say, but will not produce proof, that HM gave royal assent to them. These rules are used against British veterans to prevent them from wearing a medal awarded by the Agong (King) of Malaysia. British veterans were singled out for this special treatment by The Queen and her committee but she allowed Australian and New Zealand to accept and wear this medal. The rules are in-house non-statutory government rules which have never been passed by our elected parliament yet they tell British veterans that they cannot wear the PJM officially in public and what is worse, they believe they have the right to do so with total disregard to our democratic system. Democracy in this country, you must be joking! We private citizens are ordered what not to wear by civil servants acting on behalf of the Queen.
July 13th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
“We have to make the Monarchy and Monarchists in general as socially unacceptable as benefit cheats.”
Lmao you want Republicans to be treated with respect and equally but you want those of us who support the monarchy and remain loyal to our Queen to be seen as “socially unacceptable as benefit cheats”?
It is this sort of view that highlights there can be no middle ground on this matter. The more society moves to accommodate republicans, the more they will push until we are a minority and lose what is dear to us. Exactly the same problem applies with the separatists. You give them some room, show them a little respect, but they have no respect for our views and the system and culture we want.
It is such a shame standards have slipped in recent decades, liberal thinking may destroy our country if Her Majesty’s Government does not take some serious steps. Some have such a lack of loyalty towards country and monarchy, its so very disturbing.
July 13th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The trouble is young peoples respect for authority has vanished in recent decades, it is true this has happened despite us being a constitutional monarchy, but the change has occurred in large part because of government policy and in a democracy, it is our incompetent political leaders that we have elected who are in charge of things and responsible.
Its these god damn liberals, with their crazy left wing ideology that has created chaos. Sadly our schools do not promote British culture, history and traditions.. we wouldnt want to offend the immigrants or republicans, or separatists would we.
If children learned to look up to authority in school, instead of simply learning to follow pop groups and over paid footballers the country would be in better shape today. Speaking of a lack of respect for authority, look at the terrible scenes from Northern Ireland over the past 48 hours. Your republican brothers running riot. How can you want to give these people a partial victory by making us all Republicans. As far as im concerned that is a big enough reason to keep the monarchy, if it keeps Irish nats unhappy.
I have mentioned it b4, we do need to go down the path of america when it comes to patriotism and loyalty. Oaths and pledges in school would have been a great thing. Abolition of national service was also a huge mistake. :\
Many young people would love an opportunity whilst they were at school, to declare their loyalty to the country and some would have no problem making the oath to Her Majesty. It would be such a nice event, yet we are denied it by the left wingers and even conservatives who fail to live up to their oaths.
If new citizens are given the wonderful opportunity to say..
“I… swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.”
Why cant the rest of us
It is not fair.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Graham Smith refuses to answer any of the questions I ask him by email, so maybe some of the pundits on this blog can assist. Before Graham disappeared in a sulk, he made the following statement to me:
“Prince Charles recently claimed to have performed around 755 engagements last year, but his office has also said that an average engagement lasts around one hour. That makes an average of around 7 hours a week”
I pointed out to Graham that there are not 100 weeks in a year and asked him to explain the reason behind his strange claim that 755 hours of work a year equates to ‘around 7 hours a week’. He has so far declined to support his statement (or answer any of my other simple questions), so would any other republicans like to have a go at explaining Graham’s propaganda?
July 13th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Robbie
I didn’t read that email because, as I explained, I wasn’t prepared to exchange any more emails because of your rather childish comments, your refusal to actually engage in conversation, your obsession with irrelevant trivia and your apparent unwillingness to listen to a word I say.
That figure I gave was the total number of engagements for Charles and Camilla. Divide by two and then by 52 and you get around 7.
By all means stay around and debate the issues here, but please be aware of our moderation policy when you do so.
July 13th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
“Lmao you want Republicans to be treated with respect and equally but you want those of us who support the monarchy and remain loyal to our Queen to be seen as “socially unacceptable as benefit cheats”?”
I have to agree with you on this point, Simon. It’s plain to see you’re happy to turn a blind eye to the socialist support the Windsors get. You certainly don’t need a Republican to highlight that!
July 13th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
I have recently found this site and have been through many posts – though not all of them, I haven’t the time, so if someone has made this point already my apologies – there seems to be one point that has been missed. By our constitution – such as it is – the Prime Minister wields the Royal Prerogative in the name of the Crown; the power to declare war, sign treaties, dish out honours and so on.
This in essence is a “Wormhole” for monarchical power to subvert the democratic process. Though the Crown does not wield it – a politician does – it is used to subdue democratic accountability of the Government of the day. e.g. avoiding difficult lobbies, buying off support/opposition within one’s own party. If there was no Crown, this avenue would then be closed and Parliaments power increased over the PM.
It seems to me that that is an example of how the Crown is harmful to our democracy.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:25 am
@ Simon,
You still plying your old habits, eh?
Views formed from ignorance, prejudice and Daily Mail headlines as usual.
“Your republican brothers running riot”
Yet again your peddling of anti-Irish rantings cause great offence. Go read about British and Irish history – start with the Dark Ages and don’t stop until you get to the Good Friday Agreement. When you’ve learned something, come back and we’ll have a proper debate. Or does finding out the truth scare you?
“The more society moves to accommodate republicans…”
Have we missed something here? How is society accommodating republicans when Parliament is not even allowed to mention the “R” word?
“If children learned to look up to authority in school, instead of simply learning to follow pop groups and over paid footballers the country would be in better shape today”
I can only assume that you never went to school, Simon. Maybe you never saw any incidents where school authority was undermined? Try reading Dickens, for a starter.
“Sadly our schools do not promote British culture, history and traditions.. we wouldnt want to offend the immigrants or republicans, or separatists would we”
And these are presumably the same schools that promoted nothing but imperialism prior to the 1970s?
The same schools that, by their teachings, embedded racism and superiority over people from other lands – the sun never sets on the Empire, eh, Simon?
Unfortunately, Simon, it’s been payback time for over four hundred years’ worth of imperialism. Having raped other countries’ resources, killed off or enslaved their citizens and imposed our values on their cultures, we are now duty bound to look after them.
You can’t possibly disagree with that…..being an imperialist yourself, of course.
Having been continually insulted by you and people like you with your ill-informed and ill-educated sometimes racist views, I really don’t care if you are offended by this mythical propaganda of which you complain.
In fact, I’d rather fancy that you were insulted so that you can understand, for once, what it might be like to have had your home ransacked, your country invaded by force and your possessions removed to afar.
If this is the sole extent of the monarchists’ argument, it bodes all reasonable people to rid us of this pungeant regime and make sure it doesn’t come back again.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
July 14th, 2010 at 4:37 am
Keith
You’re quite right, the powers of the Crown are a key point in the republican debate. Some are exercised by the Queen, but most are exercised by the PM or cabinet in a way that is wholly undemocratic.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:06 am
Ah – so you have changed your stance already. You did not mention Camilla at all – and she has absolutely nothing to do with how many hours a week Prince Charles works. I can only assume you are (yet again) attempting to wriggle out of being caught out by someone who can see through your propaganda / inability to count / lack of understanding of how many weeks there are in a year?
If, as you admit, Prince Charles does 755 hours of appointments a year, then it stands to reason he does not work 7 hours a week as you ridiculously claimed. I look forward to an apology for this blatant lie. You also failed to add in travel times – which are considerable given that the Prince’s duties take him all over the world. Why did you not work this fact into your sums? Or – in your alternative universe – do you think Prince Charles has a teleportation machine?
Given that you now seem to be speaking to me again, can I expect you to answer my other very simple questions here?
July 14th, 2010 at 6:25 am
Nothing has changed Robbie, we made this very same claim two or three weeks ago and it is based on the statement from Clarence House. They made it clear that the 755 hours were the combined effort of the couple.
It’s really quite sad to see you trying to defend this. Even if we’re generous enough to say all those hours were ‘work’ done by Charles and we take into account the travel it still doesn’t add up to a full working life, nothing like it. Even his own former spin doctor, Mark Bolland, said that the royals are good at doing little work while making it seem they work hard.
What they do do is not ‘work’. They never have to prepare for their engagements, the engagements themselves are no more than ‘meet and greets’ and they never have to account for their actions. Quite frankly this bit of palace spin is insulting to all the ordinary people in this country who do work hard, for a fraction of the pay.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Goodness me – two replies and no sulking fit yet? Is this a record for you, Graham?
OK – so if a team of 3 builders work for 300 hours on building a wall, how many hours have they each worked?
Please confirm whether or not you believe Prince Charles has a teleportation machine? In your usual style, you did not reply to this question.
You also did not confirm whether or not you are prepared to answer my other questions via this medium, or are you still keen to avoid giving me straight answers to them? If you are not keen to answer then, why is that?
July 14th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Stop trolling Robbie. If you want to discuss the issues on this blog post and this site you’re free to do so, but if you just want to be a troll then I suggest you look at our moderation policy first.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:06 am
And there we have it!
The sulking begins again, and none of my questions have been answered. I could almost hear you stamping your foot.
July 14th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Martin G,
I am not anti Irish. The people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the united Kingdom. As citizens of the UK those who take part in the orange parades have every right to march through our own streets. We should not bow to the wishes of extremists simply because the scum may cause a riot and shoot police. It is very sad you are defending republic rioters. You should be condemning them because it hurts your cause. “Republican dissidents” rather dirty the republican name. And of course if you people here had your wish, they would be celebrating on the streets of northern ireland. waving the Republic of Irelands tricolour, burning images of Her majesty and taunting loyalists who have fought for decades to remain British. Does not sound like a good idea to me.
You have a republican in government. MPs are allowed to violate the oaths they have taken. We are not allowed to promote the monarchy in schools incase it offends you people.
Appeasement of republicans is already at an extreme level. All im saying is the more we give you the more you will want and the less we have.
School authority is undermined and its because of left wingers who are too soft and allow chaos.
you really do have contempt for British history dont you. Its rather sad.
ah yes, we must be punished! pathetic.
You clearly hate this country. The perfect symbol of all that is wrong with our nation today. We should be celebrating with great pride for all our nation has done for this world, not beating ourselves over the head like you would have us do.
We have spread European civilization, we have given freedom, democracy, the rule of law, science, technology, language and so much more. We have helped secure the peaceful world we live in today which you enjoy. Yet you spit in the face of previous generations that have given you that freedom.
You should be ashamed. people wonder why some think republicans are disloyal to our country… Martin, you are the perfect example of why they do.
You make me think of this song for some reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCo25F53UAk
July 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
‘The trouble is young peoples respect for authority has vanished in recent decades.’ Simon.
Another sweeping statement from Simon. Who? How many? Are you saying that this lack of respect applies to all young people, or a significant number? How are you measuring it? What a straw man this is!
And how do you define genuine ‘authority’? Given that your assertions precede the admission that despite 60 years of monarchy, lack of respect has, in your view, nevertheless prevailed. So, are you blaming successive governments of all hues or trying somehow, fairly unsuccessfully, to connect ‘respect’ with retaining the top-down, holy bogeyman of the Windsor family?
“Many young people would love an opportunity whilst they were at school, to declare their loyalty to the country and some would have no problem making the oath to Her Majesty. It would be such a nice event, yet we are denied it by the left wingers and even conservatives who fail to live up to their oaths.”
So you wish to impose a culture in which respecting ‘authority’, is defined by you? There are those to be automatically respected and those who must be schooled in being different or lowly enough to do it for no damn good reason. You believe that many hardworking young people are actually being denied the chance to make declarations? God almighty Simon; you are running out of ideas. Mutual tolerance and respect is, to my mind, a far greater necessity for social cohesion – and it’s not achievable through rote-learnt behaviour or by mindlessly mouthing oaths. One thing I am certain about – constantly to applaud the worthiness of a feudal system which elevates and separates through an imaginary gene pool of virtue is no way to value people. Arguably respect is arguably maintained by observing that other people have no more and no less entitlements in life than you do – and should not be forced around to adhere to a version of the world as interpreted by you. Republicans cannot force, they can only campaign through accurately stating facts and providing persuasive argument.
You ramble on about ‘damn liberals’ and the abolition of National Service. Above all, you present as someone who constantly regrets the inability for some jackbooted, totalitarian faction to impose its will on others. Most of the rules and regulations you laud and magnify were already in place before you were born. You just joined in the system. What an admission of withering, inert flaccidity always to defer to tradition and mind-numbing precedent, in a world where someone else always knows best.
Permanent notions of decadence, lack of respect, constitutional stasis, hierarchy, pyramidal conservatism and a penchant for militarism are disparate bedfellows in any sane society. Whilst none can be viewed in isolation, these things do not necessarily build up to support a case against democratic reform.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
“Permanent notions of decadence, lack of respect, constitutional stasis, hierarchy, pyramidal conservatism and a penchant for militarism are disparate bedfellows in any sane society. ”
In my humble opinion it’s the bedrock of fascism.
July 14th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Simon is basically a Fascist. I have said so before. Sometimes, however ,I feel that he is being as outrageous as possible in order to “Wind Us Up ” The decay of our society,which is becoming as decadent as Ancient Rome, has not been prevented by the existence of royalty. Royalty has absolutely no positive effect whatsoever on the health of our society today . Incidentally , I would bring back a form of national service. I think such a thing has positive values in a society,as long as it is not corrupted by inequality ,privilege and oaths to kings/queens etc.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Not only a fascist Barry, but also dare I say racist too!
It has to be said! He has in the past posted links to far right groups such as the EDL (English Defence League), right wing tea party nutters in the US, some of whome have made racist attacks on Obama and other Deomocrat polititians, called African tribes disgusting, without explaing why and so on. He and his mad views are not worth bothering with. There is no medicine for what he suffers from!
July 14th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Simon,
You recognise the necessity of respect for authority, but also recognise authority is undermined whenever say a Republican MP flouts the oath of alligence.
I’d be interested to establish what is most important to you, either accomodating both Monarchists & Republicans in society & maintaining respect for authority, or the current oath of alligence which is constantly undermined?
July 14th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
What is Authority?
July 14th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
And indeed WHO’s authority? And what happens when authority figures from politics, the church, the police, the medical profession, the finacial sector and (shock horror) the royals themselves let people down?
July 15th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Simon
You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts….You say:-
“I am not anti Irish. …….”
But then…….
We should not bow to the wishes of extremists simply because the scum may cause a riot and shoot police.”
“ ‘Republican dissidents’ rather dirty the republican name. ”
“And of course if you people here had your wish, they would be celebrating on the streets of northern ireland. waving the Republic of Irelands tricolour, burning images of Her majesty and taunting loyalists who have fought for decades to remain British”
Q.E.D.
Complete balderdash and nothing to do with the truth. All that is missing from you is the usual “Some of my best friends are Irish” to complete the offence and undermine your distorted view of the facts completely.
The Good Friday Agreement saw all communities (eventually) and the Governments of Ireland, Britain and the United States admit to mistakes and make concessions in order to create an ongoing peace process.
As part of the that ongoing commitment, only last month, the British Government has conceded that the events in Derry in January 1972 were completely wrong and apologised unreservedly. This despite the whitewash of the previous enquiry committed shortly after the event.
The point I am making is that even “Her Majesty’s” Government accepts responsibility for its part in the centuries of mistreatment in Ireland. Those sort of words have been erased from officialdom. And yet you still continue to repeat the unequivocally discredited position of Widgery and the lies and spin of a long gone era.
“You have a republican in government”
I must have missed that one…… Of whom do you speak? Which member of this Government is a declared republican? It’s not Clegg, Cameron, Osborne,……..Who can it be?
“Appeasement of republicans is already at an extreme level”
Examples, please.
“School authority is undermined and its because of left wingers who are too soft and allow chaos”
That is complete made up twaddle. You cannot produce evidence of this because there ain’t any. You are simply repeating the usual strap line that is always trotted out when an argument runs out of steam. Somewhere between a Parthian shot and a fox looking at the grapes.
“You clearly hate this country”
How dare you, once again, tell me what I think and then attack me on that pretext. This sort of argument smacks back to the Inquisition where proof gave way to unproven dogma and people were forced to recant. This is the sort of argument used in totalitarianism to make allegations on unwitting subjects.
But, since you mention it, you are completely wrong with that comment. I say that because this country has much more potential than just a monarch.
Besides, your assumption that republicans are disloyal to the country is a complete myth. Your comment is no longer a valid argument. However, it appears to be only one of a few remaining arguments that monarchists attempt to smear on republicans.
July 15th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Norman Baker is a government minister and we have reason to believe some other ministers are also sympathetic. Not sure this really validates any of Simon’s points however.
July 16th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Simon bewails the ‘taunting’ of ‘loyalists who have fought for decades’. So, the UDA, UFF, UVF, Red Hand Commando etc are something we should somehow support? This offensive numbskull is blatantly drumming up support for known terrorists.
July 16th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Tim,
Of course not all young people lack authority or respect. Here is an example of young people that clearly have more respect for authority,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMhHbkC7P3k
And here is an example of young people that do lack respect for authority, and basic human decency.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A27Fa3tvQU
I can not put numbers on the problem. I would say you could break down young people into 3 groups. A small group of very good young people, a small group of very bad young people and most who are in the middle but can swing both ways.
The government should be taking a very tough line on the “very bad group” rather than the pathetically soft approach we see today. We also need certain policies and standards to ensure more young people can be classed as very good. Many things can be done to ensure that, in a lot of cases tough action on the baddies can help improve those who may swing one way or another.
Well im not just saying anyone that doesnt support the monarchy lacks respect or authority. Im talking about respect for the rule of law, the state, country, society, the police, armed forces etc and yes respect for the monarchy even if their preferred choice is abolition, respect is still needed. Whilst you are all free to be republicans, i still think you should show respect to Her Majesty, by addressing her by her title always rather than this “Mrs Windsor” which is clearly aimed at causing offence and undermining her position.
Yes i condemn the labour and conservative parties, along with the left wing in general who have caused us to be in the present mess we are in today, for a collection of reasons of course.
British culture should be encouraged in British schools. I have no time for this multicultural crap.
Yes i do. In America from preschool all the way to highschool Kids there get the chance to take the pledge to their flag and republic. Some kids have demanded their right to do that whilst left wing teachers with their own agenda have tried to stop it. Why should British kids not be allowed to pledge to our country and take an oath to our Queen?
We dont even have flags in schools these days, its pathetic and its coz of this left wing anti British agenda that our political elites have forced onto us which caused all sorts of problems.
July 16th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I am all for tolerance and respect, sadly people take it to the extremes and it is more like appeasement. Something that creates far more problems for our country in the long run.
How exactly does that work? All positions in arguments are not equal. The Church of England/Scotland is this country’s state religion, im not a religious person, but Christianity certainly has more entitlement than a foreign religion like islam. Should muslims be treated equally?, but at the moment they benefit from positive discrimination. Should Islam and Christianity be seen as equal religions? no. This is a Christian country with Christian heritage and certain traditions must be respected.
Your path of appeasement would see the establishment of Sharia law in this country.
ha, its certainly questionable if all republicans do that.
Barry,
I may be an authoritarian but i am not a fascist. I support remaining a democracy.
I accept that, but that is because we are a democracy and those we are elect to govern are to blame.
iMatt,
I am not a racist. I oppose the colonization of this country because of immigration, but i am not against limited immigration, as long as the majority remain the clear majority and the minority remain the minority.
I dont have any specific problem with people based on race and their own religion. If they are proud to be British and loyal to this country and its culture and traditions, i dont have a problem if they are black, white, asian, muslim, jew etc.
I do not support the EDLs actions although i can understand why they do what they do when they see the political elites refusing to address a serious problem in our country. The far left UAF are just as annoying and cause the trouble for the police. My link to the EDL was to highlight a bunch of thugs can sing our national anthem and make it sound good. Changing it to something more complex would make it too hard for them to sing.
Ash,
Ive proposed something to solve this. Id allow opt outs for the oath on the condition the republican campaign material clearly mentions they are a republican and the ballot paper also mentions this fact. Trouble is at the moment people vote for a party like labour that supports the monarchy, yet they end up with a republican MP, many of them did not know was the case. In those circumstances, people should be expected to take the oath.
As long as they are clearly marked as a republican on the ballot paper, next to the party then id accept them not making an oath to the Queen, and just doing one for the country. It would also be a good way to measure how people respond to electing republicans, it might spark a debate you guys could take part in as his opponents question his loyalty / patriotism.
But without that idea, id keep the oath and keep it compulsory. MPs cheating their expenses does far more damage than something like an MP lying through their oath.
July 16th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Imatt,
When an institution or person in authority lets the side down, efforts have to be made to win back trust. When someone from politics lets us down, we can vote for someone else. If a religion or church lets us down we can give up on religion or change church, financial sector and corporations are more difficult to deal with unless you want to go down the communist path and take them all over. As for the royals, of course people can make mistakes. If they let down the country so much we would obviously see a rise in support for a republic and if the majority wanted it, wed get it.
It helps having faith in many institutions. That way if one does let you down, you dont lose faith in everything. Sadly republicans want to hand over control of everything to politicians. Dangerous move.
Martin,
How do any of the sentences you link make me anti irish, and what was untrue? I am anti Irish republicans who not only seek to remove my Queen from her throne, they also want to destroy our country.
I only know a couple of Irish people, i would not describe them as my best friends.
Government and British troops can and in the past have made mistakes. I dont know why you mention Widgery, i have not mentioned anything of the sort about that incident or tried to justify it. I thought Mr Camerons response to the inquiry was rather moving. Seeing a man described in the report as being in the area with a machine gun celebrate the report did sort of lower the tone, but as you rightly say Her Majesty’s Government, the Republics government and the people of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland all accepted the peace process, that means we must put up with a former IRA commander in the position of first minister.
I want peace, i think that is a good thing. It is for the people of the north to decide if they wish to remain part of the UK. we should be doing all we can to ensure the majority continue to support it. I do not accept we must appease a bunch of hardcore republican rioters by ending citizens rights to march through their own streets in our country. You appease them on this, they come back and want more.
As Graham said, Norman Baker.
““Appeasement of republicans”, letting Republic in Schools to give talks in Citizenship lessons come to mind for 1.
You want evidence our schools and many kids are out of control? Lmao Google it.
Your hostility to our country and it history seems to go further than just to the monarchy.
I never said republicans are disloyal to the country, i said you help give that impression where u seemed to attack British history and hinted we deserve some of the problems we have today.
Stephen
I am simply stating fact that many in Northern Ireland had to fight for their right to remain British. I do not support nor encourage any form of violence. I can not condemn loyalists for seeking to defend their lands and people from the Irish Republican Army and some of the other groups that set out to slaughter innocent people. We all have to move on from the past. I have to accept the fact we now have a former IRA commander as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Something difficult for many people.
July 16th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Deputy First Minister*** not first minister.
July 16th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Simon you do talk some nonsense. Schools inviting republicans to speak is not “appeasement”, it’s education and free speech.
And do try and stop obsessing over Northern Ireland, which has absolutely nothing to do with this issue, beyond the fact that they’re a part of the country we want to reform. You may as well carry on about the weather the amount of relevance it has to this debate. The people of Northern Ireland wishing to remain a part of the UK is not a blanket acceptance of the way the UK is governed or a blanket excuse for objecting to reform. So get off that particular hobby horse and deal with the real issues of national governance and democratic principle.
July 16th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Graham,
I do not think political pressure groups should be allowed into schools, this isnt just a republican thing. I object to green peace going in and brainwashing them about climate change too.
Free speech always has and always will have limits when it comes to what is taught in schools. British schools paid for by the state should be ensuring the children learn important things about our country and are loyal to it and respect the law. I do not see why questioning the monarchy and our traditions should be part of the curriculum. It should be promoting and encouraging it.
I have admiration for the Americans when it comes to these sorts of things like patriotism in schools, sadly they too have the left wingers who oppose things like the pledge of allegiance. If we were to become a republic, i hope wed adopt their sort of patriotism policies. Flag in every classroom, flying at every school and government building, Daily pledges etc. A more military styled republic might be pretty cool.
As for Northern Ireland, i think the situation there is relevant. It seems to me republicans makes a lot of good arguments (I happen to disagreee with them), but some good points are made and ive often stated id support some reforms following the Queens death to resolve certain issues, but that now is not the time.
But it seems to be Republic takes a very internationalist view of things, without accepting some of the clear implications our country would face and how our history is so tied to the monarchy, it is so difficult to make a clean break.
Issues like Scotlands vote for the head of state and the implications in Northern Ireland from such radical change all have to be taken into account. These issues have an impact on the very survival of the United Kingdom (which would have to be renamed), they can not simply be dismissed or ignored.
July 16th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Graham Smith
I am from Scotland and I think Simon has some very good points, I do not think a “Republic” would work for the United Kingdom. What if the people in England liked someone as “President” and Scotland was totally against him/her, It would be an unfair problem to have and would not work in our country at all. The Conservatives have one seat in Scotland and its clear that Scotland and England have different views when voting, So would you find it fair that England would be voting for a “President” that England liked and Scotland would have no power to control the Vote in a “Republic” system.
We should keep our “Monarch” because it is a fair system to have for the United Kingdom, It’s a fair setup for devolution and makes sure that each end of the United Kingdom is heard. If you are a Unionist then you will be sure to know that the SNP are the biggest threat to the 300 year old Union. He would love to see a Republic as it would not be a fair democracy for Scotland. We would see Nationalism Rocket over night and lead to the break up of the United Kingdom.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Simon you were almost correct when you said this,
” I would say you could break down young people into 3 groups. A small group of very good young people, a small group of very bad young people and most who are in the middle but can swing both ways.”
You just need to delete a couple of words, here try this,
” I would say you could break down people into 3 groups. A small group of very good people, a small group of very bad people and most who are in the middle but can swing both ways.”
There, that’s better. Please try to overcome your illogical fear of young people.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
There are some myths and misunderstandings about monarchy here ; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queens-cash-crisis-proves-we-uareu-all-in-it-together-2026867.html
July 16th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Rob D,
A valid point, but many young people will remain in the same group they are in when they get older. So it is vital that we shape young people to be good loyal citizens of the state. To respect the law, society, other citizens etc, it is far to difficult to reform bad characters years later.
Must better to start sorting things out now, rather than wait until its too late. We need order, not chaos because of liberals running amok.
Oh and just to correct a sentence i said in a previous post before i get accused of hating muslims.
” Should muslims be treated equally?, but at the moment they benefit from positive discrimination”
“Was meant to say.. Should muslims be treated equally? Yes, but at the moment they benefit from positive discrimination. ”
Bob,
There will have to be an increase in state funding in the next few years. It is shocking Her Majesty is having to sell off property to help fund the royal estate, like maintenance to buildings that we would expect to remain with the state if the monarchy was abolished.
July 16th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
“Graham Smith I am from Scotland and I think Simon has some very good points, I do not think a “Republic” would work for the United Kingdom. What if the people in England liked someone as “President” and Scotland was totally against him/her, It would be an unfair problem to have and would not work in our country at all. The Conservatives have one seat in Scotland and its clear that Scotland and England have different views when voting, So would you find it fair that England would be voting for a “President” that England liked and Scotland would have no power to control the Vote in a “Republic” system.”
Hello Keith,
Why have you put the word Republic in inverted commas?
Your logic goes, Scotland may not get the President they want, and therefore we should not choose at all.
Well, that well may be the case, but at least they’ll have a bigger say than the current provisions.
The last time the Scottish people tried to have a say in who was Head of State was a few hundred years ago.
my understanding is a lot of Scottish people feel the need to become a Republic.
Simon may argue that the SNP supports the monarch, but seemingly fails to understand gaining independence makes it easier for the Scotland to become Republic.
If no such place as Britain exists, where does that leave the British Royal family?
July 16th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
What is really shocking is that millions of us pseudo-citizens are having to tighten our belts, millions of us pseudo-citizens have to live in fear of losing our jobs. Compared to that the so called embodiment of the nation is still suffering no deprivation compared to the rest of the people. The queen’s personal wealth was no doubt enhanced by none payment of tax for years before 1992, and she was afforded a special arrangement regarding inheritance tax that raked in an estimated £20million from her mother’s estate. Perhaps she might like to dip into that personal fortune seeing as we pseudo-citizens cum subjects are having to dip into our savings just to get by.
July 16th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Ash
I am saying Scotland and England vote different, While England is mainly conservative Scotland is not. I only want what is best for the United Kingdom. In my eyes the only system that works for our country is the Monarch. Why should we change a system that works so well to one that would give “England” the choice of whom runs our country ? A republic is not a fair system for our country since we have Devolution it makes it even harder for me to see it working at all.
Most of Scots support the Monarch and would like to keep it that way it seems. Independence is certainly not the answer for Scotland, Recent polls have also showed that most Scots support a “United Kingdom”.
I have been on this site for little less than one day, The dilemma I have seen with most of the people that support a Republic is that they do not really like the Idea of a “United” Kingdom at all. Most of the Republicans think that if Scotland got Independence that it would some how make a “Republic” come true for allot of you in England.
July 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
@ Keith,
Technically, the United Kingdom is a Union between England and Scotland. There is no constitutional basis for dissolving that Union (other then by making up the laws on the hoof). End of.
However, Scottish Nationalism has certainly had a growing impact North of the Border especially since the 1970s when it is claimed that the economic impact of England and the oil industry in particular has (allegedly) “stolen” much of the wealth to Scotland’s disadvantage.
It would therefore appear that the only way out of this mess is to grant a referendum but maybe the English should also be included in that referendum.
The subject of whether an independent Scotland would remain a monarchy with Elizabeth the First as head of state or become a republic is a separate issue. After all, the Queen is still currently head of state to a dozen or more sovereign territories throughout the world.
July 17th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Martin
There is no justification for a referendum on the destruction of our United Kingdom. It is supported by a majority of people and most Scottish MPs/MSPs. Yet again you suggest a path of appeasement, giving the SNP a referendum wont solve the problem. Id support one if it was on the condition that the SNP as a party would be disbanded and that certain policies will be introduced to strengthen the union to reflect the clear wishes of the people of Scotland.
Sadly they would not disband or give up, so why bother? exactly the same applies to you republicans. If we had a referendum on the monarchy and it won overwhelming support, would republic disband? would you be prepared to accept some major changes to ensure that future generations support the monarchy? no, youd carry on and try to win the argument next time.
Appeasement solves nothing. The only solution is to take a firm hand to the situation and crush this dangerous separatist agenda once and for all. There are many things that could be done, sadly our political leadership does not take action, even in small areas which could produce a lot of results without being controversial or seen as extreme, they completely flunk it.
And its the political leadership that would be deciding which random among their own teams should become president if we were to have the misfortune of ever becoming a republic. Theyd either choose who appears on the ballot and peoples party loyalties will kick in at the election, or they will do it like the germans, where the people have no vote at all.
I notice you completely missed the point he was making.
The point was that if the UK became a republic, it would help the separatists with their agenda. First of all giving everyone a referendum on the monarchy, when there is no demand for one will back up their justification for a referendum on independence. Second with such major constitutional changes being made, obviously the Independence debate will become more relevant in Scotland.
But the 3rd point is the biggest. Because of the UKs demographics, England every time would decide who becomes the head of state of our British Republic. It is not hard to imagine scenarios where a huge number of votes from England go to someone that is well “very English”. A tiny number of people may vote for the person in Scotland, yet they would become head of state. This would have huge implications and play to nationalism in both Scotland and Wales.
Also ofcourse the history of the monarchy goes hand in hand with the history of our union. Our country would not exist today if it wasnt for the union of the crowns between England and Scotland. Monarchy helped shape our UNITED KINGDOM. I dont understand how we can throw all of this away for the foreign concept of a Republic.
The risks of becoming a republic are huge, people here refuse to accept the detail. Which is why people often say lets leave that for a later debate. Trying to win people over on general points without giving them all the details, and how when it comes down to it republics just wouldnt work for our country.
July 17th, 2010 at 10:42 am
@ Simon
Once again you ignore the facts, you disregard reality and your views border on something between a parrot a stuck record.
You are completely crackers.
End of conversation.
July 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Martin G,
What facts am i ignoring?
Fact: The Scottish National Party currently does not oppose the monarchy.
Fact: Salmond has said he doesnt think a referendum in Scotland would be needed if independent on retaining the monarchy.
Fact: The most dangerous separatist in the United Kingdom has no problem with our present head of state.
Now you seek to change all of that by making us a republic.
Question: Do you think Salmond will support the same candidate as Labour or the conservatives put forward for president?
Question: If the person selected is seen as very English will salmond use it as a case for Scotland having its own head of state, something he will link to independence.
Question: If England overwhelmingly voted for one person whilst Scotland overwhelmingly voted for someone else. Would Alex Salmond claim the head of state has no legitimacy in Scotland?
Question: If we hold a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy when 95% of the votes at general elections go to parties that support the monarchy, will it weaken the argument against holding a referendum on the independence because 78% vote for parties that support the union at the general election in Scotland?
July 17th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Martin
Simon makes some very good points, I do not know how you can say he is “crackers” just because he brings up valid facts about why we should keep the monarch. He clearly wants what is best for our country and when he brings up very good points you “End Conversation”.
I do not know how Republicans can want to end a 300 year old Union for a silly unfair “Republic” that would do no justice for our country. If you are a Unionist then you should know that keeping the United Kingdom “United” is worth much more than a republic.
If the United Kingdom did turn into a republic then it would work very well for Alex Salmond, As Simon has said:
“It is not hard to imagine scenarios where a huge number of votes from England go to someone that is well “very English”. A tiny number of people may vote for the person in Scotland, yet they would become head of state”
How would this be fair ? That Scotland would have to accept a very “English” head of State when most of Scots did not vote for him/her. Alex Salmond would use this and make it clear that Scotland was not getting the right voice in the United Kingdom and this would lead to the break up of the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom’s “England & Scotland” are built on the monarch and united under the monarch, We cannot be United under an unfair “Republic” that would not work for the Devolved Parliament and Assembles.
Many people that want a Republic have not thought through how much damage it would cause to the Union with England and Scotland, You have not thought through the worst impact off all and that is an end to a 300 year old Union.
July 17th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Simon insists that Britain is a Christian country. No Simon, it’s a democracy. I’m British, I’m not a Chistian. End of.
And, if we are to mention Northern Ireland, may I suggest Simon reads ‘War and an Irish Town’ which gives a full explanation of the discrimination in that state – and state forces’ part in said discrimination – whereby definitions of Christian faith were used as an excuse to maintain generations of Loyalist, Orange bigotry and the political and economic disenfranchisement of the Catholic population.
And has Simon denied sympathy for the UDA, UVF, UFF yet?
July 17th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Britain is a Christian nation only in name in most respects. The Simpsons go to church more than most so called Christians in this country. A recent Times article suggests that that two thirds of Brits now do not admit to any religious adherence.
Remember, Chritianity itself was an imported belief just as Viking and Roman gods were. Surely the indigenous faith in these islands was Aglo Saxon Paganism?
As with the military, the monarchy has hijacked Christianity, made it a state religion (C of E) and used it for their own convenience.
July 17th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Simon
“Sadly they would not disband or give up, so why bother? exactly the same applies to you republicans. If we had a referendum on the monarchy and it won overwhelming support, would republic disband? would you be prepared to accept some major changes to ensure that future generations support the monarchy? no, you’d carry on and try to win the argument next time.”
That’s like saying ” The Labour Party won an overwhelming majority in ‘97 and did the Tories disband? No they carried on and won the argument 13 years later; how dare they!”
Of course Republic would carry on if we lost a referendum. The chances are that if we won the right to a referendum next year, we may well lose the vote. All the more reason to get your voice behind the referendum. If the Monarchist case is as water tight as you say then you should get your weight behind the referendum campaign. There are still many misconceptions out there and people have many other things to consider in their lives. They simply do not have the time or inclination to do the research that will enlighten them. As well as that, much of the so called unbiased media are nothing more than fawning lambs.
The point is, as far as I am concerned, that defeat for us is not 100% certain and anyhow, the exposure we received, and the chance to make our sound argument, would ensure an army of new recruits. No doubt the core Monarchist support would also strengthen as those that cannot change their ways look ever inward. However, the uncontaminated youth will see the logic of our argument, free of the fear of change, and our future victory is all but assured.
The Monarchist fear of a referendum and national discussion is not the fear of a first round loss, the Monarchist knows that in a 12 round bruiser the Republicans will win by clear knockout.
Monarchists talk about history and tradition, just imagine the glorious new page that we could all write within our lifetime. In the future, the history of Britain could have a book mark that is on a par with any of the great events in our past. A must teach subject in all future history lessons and a great example of the power of reason.
Good men respect our history, great men make it.
July 17th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Robbie,
“Please confirm whether or not you believe Prince Charles has a teleportation machine?
Well I have no idea, possibly so. However it is known that he likes to travel abroad with a dozen or so staff in airliners that were built to carry 100+. I wonder if this is what he means when he says he cares for our environment.
As for Liz tootling about in Thomas the tank engine, would you care to defend the costs in that one?
755/52 = 14.5
A shockingly low figure for a working week. How you can defend it is beyond me, and er yeah, I’m sure Charles hates traveling all over the world.
I pity the Monarchist.
July 17th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Keith said – “I do not know how Republicans can want to end a 300 year old Union for a silly unfair “Republic” that would do no justice for our country. If you are a Unionist then you should know that keeping the United Kingdom “United” is worth much more than a republic.”
Well it’s quite easy really. We want a republic where everyone is equal under the law, where everyone has equality within the tax law, where there is no heredity in public office, where there is no curtsying, bowing and scraping or deference, where we have a Head of State elected from amongst us, where we have a written constitution not a bunch of conventions as now, (laughably referred to as our unwritten constitution), and which is made up on the hoof by pragmatic politicians, where politicians will be less inclined to deceive us because there will actually be mechanisms in place to stop them if they try, where the executive is not all powerful, you know, all those sort of silly unfair things.
It is arguable that a federation of British republics would actually strengthen the union and not weaken it. At present the union is under strain and I don’t see any imaginative measures being taken to strengthen it.
July 17th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@ Keith
Like previous contributors, you dabble a great deal in hypothesis.
The “Scottish question” is a complete red herring.
I have no idea what the leader of the SNP will do but what is clear is that the SNP are pushing for a mandate to break the Union (i.e. an independent Scotland within the EU). Scotland will then doubt be free to choose who they appoint as head of state.
Republicanism does not necessarily preclude a break up of the Union or otherwise. The two issues are mutually exclusive.
You can have a British Republic (under the current federal lines) or English/Welsh/Scottish/Cornish Republics.
Therefore, in agreeing with Bob Wiggin, I do not find substance in your argument that states: “If you are a Unionist then you should know that keeping the United Kingdom “United” is worth much more than a republic“.
July 18th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Martin
It is very clear what any leader of the SNP would push for and that is an end to the United Kingdom. A republic would do so much damage to the UK. For a start we would have a head of state elected by England, We would have a SNP Government pushing for Independence. It’s not a fair system for our situation in the United Kingdom. Devolution was built for the Monarch and not for a republican system.
Martin you said that “Republicanism does not necessarily preclude a break up of the Union or otherwise. The two issues are mutually exclusive”
It creates a path for the break up of the United Kingdom, It would give the Nationalist the biggest reason to spilt from the UK since the discovery of oil in the North sea. We do not need to create more reasons to put the Union in risk. We need to think of more ways to Unite this country and stamp out division in such a small country.
Since when was Cornwall a constituent country in the United Kingdom ? You see you have gave a new path for Cornish nationalist now. Cornish nationalism would rise and an out brake for a Federal Cornwall would rise. It opens new paths to divide Britain, Paths that any Unionist would not take.
Bob says: “we want a republic where everyone is equal” How would living in a republic where England would decide who runs the country “equal”. We have to keep the only system that works for our set-up and thats the monarch.
July 19th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Keith, you have a very odd idea about what constitutes ‘fair’. How is it ‘fair’ for Scotland to be given an English head of state who they never had any chance of voting for, rather than being able to participate in Union-wide elections that will choose a British head of state who can represent everyone?
The monarchy is a lot less popular in Scotland than it is in England, and many Scots see the Queen as the Queen of England (and I’ve often heard Scots complain that she is not Elizabeth II to them). So getting rid of the monarchy would mean one less reason to abandon the Union with England.
Also, what makes you think that the vote would be divided along national grounds? Most English people don’t really think in terms of a Scottish/English divide and would be happy to support a Scottish candidate if they were the right person for them (millions of English voted for a Scottish PM at the last election). Equally I have no doubt that Scottish voters would support an English candidate (lots of Scots voted for an English PM at the last election). So this ‘divide’ is irrelevant.
More importantly however, it is fanciful to believe that Scots will support or oppose the Union according to who our head of state is or how they are chosen. The Union is founded on a strong historical bond that is kept together through ordinary daily experience – family, trade, culture, language etc. Scottish independence is not that popular in Scotland, there is no reason to believe that allowing the Scots a say in who the national head of state will be would change that one bit.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:05 am
@ Keith,
Thank you for you contributions.
I shall address your points…..
“It is very clear what any leader of the SNP would push for and that is an end to the United Kingdom.”
I agree with you on this point. After all, the clue is in the name of the Scottish Nationalist Party!
“Devolution was built for the Monarch and not for a republican system.”
I don’t understand your point here. I would have thought that, primarily, devolution was a way of devolving power on a number of matters to the constituent parts of the Union.
However, the partial devolution to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembley creates further questions of, for instance, Scottish MPs voting on matters that concern England (hence the “West Lothian question” of some years ago).
Personally speaking, I would therefore assume that the next logical step will be full independence between co-operating states of England, Wales and Scotland, such as currently exists (for example) between Britain and Ireland. In that manner, the reciprocal resentment of the English on matters such as university fees, where Scottish MSPs voted against in the Scottish Parliament and yet Scottish MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour, would be irrelevant.
The overriding point here is that, even if we accept that there is a relationship between Republicanism and the break up of the Union (and I would disagree that this is the case), your argument is the wrong way around in that the Union appears to be breaking up long before Republicanism comes on to the agenda.
North Sea oil particularly rankles with the Scots as – rightly or wrongly – they see this as one very good reason why Scotland should be independent.
Anyone who has been to Cornwall (Kernow) of late will have noticed the rise in Cornish identity and nationalism. The break up of the Union need not stop at England, Scotland or Wales. Many Scots (and possibly same with the Cornish?) see independent statehood within the European Union as their way forward.
Given the political intertwining with Europe (where even pre-Maastrict Treaty around 84% of our laws and regulations are sourced), the relevance of the Union wanes against an oncoming economic and political federal Europe is going to happen whether we like it or not. But that’s another argument and – again – a separate issue altogether from republicanism.
July 19th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Martin,
The “West Lothian Question” can be fixed by ‘English votes for English laws’ the plan to ban Scottish MPs from voting on laws for England to end the “English question” arising from the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
I do not agree to an end to “University fees” and would like to see people paying for what they are getting and that is a ticket for a higher paid job. The working class should not have to pay for other people’s University fees it should be them, They are the ones that are going to get a higher paid job than most people, So I think they should pay of the debt that gave them the right to a higher paid job.
The Scots that see “Oil” as a way for independence are foolish, To rely on oil to keep a country going is just too dangerous, The oil in the North Sea is of course declining everyday and the “Oil” Issue will be dead in the next decades to come.
The United Kingdom needs to stay United for the future of the next generations, When the world gets closer separatists like yourself want to break us apart. Small countries in the European Union is a laughing stock, Look at Ireland, What happened when Ireland said “NO” to the Lisbon treaty ? That is right they had to do a re-vote because the bigger nations were not happy, If Britain had a referendum and we said “NO” it would for sure be a “NO”. Just shows you that small nations in the European Union is bullied and rely on the bigger nations for finical aid etc
A federal Europe ? a Europe where the citizens do not choose a President or where members states are bullied into submission and cant take “NO” for an answer, Thats not a democracy it’s a “sham”. I for one do not want the next Generation to live under a corrupt democracy and you’re so called “Federal Europe”.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
@ Keith,
Your point about English MP’s voting exclusively on English matters and Scottish MSPs/MPs voting exclusively on Scottish matters is effectively describing the end of the Union.
The point I made about “my” Europe is fact not my opinion. Like it or loath it, we are almost wholly consumed in Europe and the doubts over whether or not we have a proper constitutional democracy in Britain are highlighted by the fact that there is nothing that your average voter can do about it – either for or against.
The nearest we got were the referenda in the 1970s but since then, as far as Britain is concerned, the economic market (originally a Franco-German Iron & Steel treaty just after the second world war) has developed into the inevitable political union and a de facto Federal Europe.
I reckon that SNP (and probably Plaid Cymru) have cottoned on to this and are using the argument to reassure the Scots and the Welsh that, economically and politically, they are not alone if the Union breaks as they will remain firmly within Europe.
Personally, the current format of Europe run by Commissioners with a sop of a European Parliament is unacceptable but is it any more democratic that the form of government we have in Britain?
Is this another paradox whereby monarchists are quite happy to exist under a non-democratic government and yet, many of the same people will howl with rage and argue that European government is not democratic?
I’ll leave you with those thoughts.