Jump to content

Roughie OBE


jaggy
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

You could extend that logic to atheists not taking Christmas and Easter holidays. Agnostics would maybe knock off at lunchtime on Easter Monday.

Why do we need the word, ‘atheist’?  That’s like having a specific name for people that refuse to believe that Patrick Thistle won the 1st division title in 1978 when Arthur Montford was the manager. 

Still, it’s nice to see big Roughie being recognised for his achievements.  We’ll done big fella, we’re proud of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I think we would be hard pressed to find a society where some section of it doesn’t hold a privileged position, even in the remotest villages.

I guess everybody that is opposed to the Royal family and the honours system politely declined the extra days holiday this year.

I am not fussed about the Royal family one way or another. I just don’t get the angst that some are displaying here as that establishment would be replaced by something else.

Can anyone come up with a better reason for maintaining a head of state purely determined by birth-right than "it's been like that for a long time and we can't think of an alternative so we should just accept it for what it is"? If they can then maybe people will embrace the monarchy as a worthwhile and necessary social institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

If you truly believe in democratically-elected leaders who are periodically accountable to the population who can vote them in again or out, when they want, you will understand it. Monarchies whether constitutional, feudal or whatever, all depend on people accepting  the archaic notion that a head of state should come from just one family and that certain off-spring are born, to be king or queen. We live in the modern era where nepotism or deference to people like this does not fit with notions of equality, fairness and eg multi-culturism where anybody regardlesss of creed, colour, or background can aspire to high position.. ie  If you’re British, dependent on your character, skills and abilities,  the opportunity should be there. Queen Elizabeth 2nd (1st of Scotland) may be popular with a lot of people, though statistics tell us this is mainly with over-65s. But, the ‘others’ in her family are much less so. The present monarch could well be-and I believe should be-the last! We still have all the history and the palaces etc for people to look at and enjoy if they want plus the history books to read etc. (The buildings would be more open to the public than they are now!) When the present monarch’s ‘reign’ ends, it would be a good time to consign this anachronism to history, and allow Britain (or Scotland and Britain minus) to move on to progress to a modern, less class-conscious society. I would also say this applies to the House of Lords, where over 800 people-more than elected in the House of Commons (650) -are all receiving tax payers’ money, privilege and power, to support an undemocratic second chamber. Britain sadly, remains an extremely class-ridden country with power, wealth and privilege paramount. Why does Nicola Sturgeon never mention the amount of land owned in Scotland  by aristocrats, rich landowners and corporate moguls-not a word about it. The same applies in England, including that owned by the Church of England. Very little land in both countries is actually still what could be regarded as the ‘‘commons’ available for all, to be used by all. Many of the points I’ve raised are swept under the carpet or ignored by monarchists who prefer the status quo ie the glamour/pomp/celebrity of the monarchy. But, the present monarch is at the apex of  a ruling ‘class’, which many at the top would like to see carry on in perpetuity. That’s what the present monarch is doing, holding on, until she can safely pass things over intact to the next member of her family. Except,  she, like many, perhaps feels less than confident or secure,  in the present  ‘heir apparent’! Looking at the current ‘desperation’ of right wing newspapers constantly trumpeting (pun intended!) members of the royal family in a positive way on their front pages, on a daily basis, whilst surveys tell us more and more of the public are either disinterested or against, she may be right to be concerned!

These democratically elected leaders you mention find a way to stay in their privileged positions, not just in this country, but in other countries, none more so than the supposed most democratic country of them all - USA.  Not that I know a lot about the Russian and French societies, but looking in it still seems to me that those in power have more privileges than the ordinary people. And these are 2 countries where Aristocracy was overthrown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scotty said:

Can anyone come up with a better reason for maintaining a head of state purely determined by birth-right than "it's been like that for a long time and we can't think of an alternative so we should just accept it for what it is"? If they can then maybe people will embrace the monarchy as a worthwhile and necessary social institution.

It seems to be going down pretty well in England, this Jubilee stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Which particular democratically-elected leaders are YOU referring to? I didn’t mention anyone specifically. In the USA, a far from perfect example of true democracy, the President can only serve two terms of four years before giving up office. In the UK a king/queen is Head of State for life. If you get one you don’t like you’re stuck with him/her. You’ve chosen to mention two countries-Russia and France-but they’re not the only ones who don’t have a monarchy. They both had violent revolutions to get rid of theirs but you don’t need a revolution  to have an elected head of state. There are many. But, I have to say, for someone who wrote (above) “I am not fussed about the royal family one way or another” you seem to be going out of your way to defend it or at least to challenge any alternative to it. I am a republican in outlook and freely admit that. That’s my motivation. What’s yours?

I am not in any way defending the monarchy. All the arguments against have been about it being a privileged group, albeit one where that privilege is passed from generation to generation. Past Presidents in the USA continue with privilege. Even past PM’s and political leaders in the U.K. manage to get themselves privileged positions once they are outof  office./politics(Cameron,Blair,Osborne,Miliband to name a few.) My whole point is that our Establishment is the monarchy, other countries have their own. The notion that ridding the country of the monarchy and we get rid of the establishment, I think, is misguided. 
Politically, I don’t have strong views, but would probably be more socialist than conservative if that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

No, MY main argument has been about democracy and accountability. The monarchy is not elected periodically or otherwise. It is not accountable. I believe we should be able to get rid of leaders we change our minds about and no one should have a leadership role for life. I also don’t see why one baby should be considered more important than another because of who the mother and father are. The monarchy is privileged because the present one has continued to build up its wealth, which now totals £billions. The ‘Panama Papers’ revealed a few years ago, that our present monarchy squirrels money away in tax havens to avoid paying taxes, which isn’t exactly in keeping with being truly patriotic IMO. My ‘patriotism’ hinges on the people in this country being given a fair deal, being looked after when times are hard, and not subject to the vagaries of ‘the market’. If we’re all British why should anyone be treated differently. In the sixth richest economy in the world, why can’t we do better at getting rid of relative poverty and particularly child poverty. Neoliberalism which arrived via Thatcher in this country (and the USA via Reagan ) reversed the postwar concensus. The Welfare State has been stripped back, the NHS is under-funded, receiving a smaller share in percentage terms than most other western European countries’ health provision. Public services eg energy have been handed over to the private sector, where profit is paramount. And, employers  nowadays have too much power, with employees at a disadvantage, which unsurprisingly has led us to eg ‘the Gig econmomy’, hire and fire, zero hours contracts, low pay, and in-work poverty. Many people in work rely on food banks to survive. Where does the royal family fit in to this? Well, British governments continue to increase the amount given to subside the monarchy year on year.  It is clearl the government believes the monarchy must be cosseted and protected at all costs, through all economic times. There is no question of them being told they will have to tighten their belts. The financial costs of monarchy are actually huge eg security is enormous with a large royal family.  The present Jubilee is costing £millions. Does the present monarch ask, at these times of hardship for the people for costs to be toned down? No she does not. Food banks are burgeoning, people are avoiding using energy and some even missing meals. These are hard times for a lot of people. Yet, some of the royal family want a gold coach for a marriage, or expensive private air travel, or some other big projects to be paid for out of the public purse. And, of course, our present monarch reinforces the ‘class system’ with deference-bowing and curtsying, and older adults having to address younger royals as ‘Sir’ and ‘Ma’am’. There are many royal protocols to be followed, which is anathema in a modern, progressive society. The monarchy is all about power, prestige, patronage, deference and tradition. Some traditions are harmless. IMO this one is pernicious. That is why I oppose it. It holds the country back in the past. That is why some ex-colonies  have decided more recently to cecede from the Commonwealth and remove our present queen as their head of state.

I really don’t know what your argument is here. It seems to be that the elected politicians in this country don’t have the gumption to say no to Royal Family. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Well, if you don’t know what my “argument”(s) against the monarchy are, after the amount I have written in my various posts , I really must be wasting my time! But, of course, those in power, eg the Conservatives, are the political representatives of the ruling class and ‘shout loudest for the monarchy’ because they are really about conserving the wealth of their main supporters, power and privilege. Monarchy is a highly conservative if not Conservative institution. (It’s claimed the monarchy is neutral but this is nonsense!) The present queen didn’t want to pay taxes and didn’t do for many years. She was finally unable to get out of it. But, we don’t know what she pays and no one says we should be told. The Liberal party support the monarchy. The right wing/centre  of the Labour Party support the monarchy. They said they’d get rid of the House of Lords but….!  Nicola Sturgeon supports the monarchy so I guess, so does the SNP. The nearer to power politicians get, the more they’re in thrall to the status quo, of which the monarchy is a part. Who was it said once, “If voting changed anything very much, they’d abolish it.”? Give that gal/guy a coconut! Enjoy the rest of your jubilee weekend. There’s a whole evening devoted to the monarchy on BBC1!

Still no clearer to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scotty said:

Maybe because your not listening to the arguments and falling back on a "always been that way so we daren't change it" attitude?

It’s not that I am not listening, I am not sure that I know what they are. If it’s Lets get rid of the monarchy how is that going to be achieved. In fact, that argument isnt playing very well with the U.K. electorate as the party that is most in favour of the monarchy has been in power for 30 of the last 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

It’s not that I am not listening, I am not sure that I know what they are. If it’s Lets get rid of the monarchy how is that going to be achieved. In fact, that argument isnt playing very well with the U.K. electorate as the party that is most in favour of the monarchy has been in power for 30 of the last 40 years.

... also the party responsible for the most flagrant undermining of the monarchy re the proroguing of parliament. 

Edited by lady-isobel-barnett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

It’s not that I am not listening, I am not sure that I know what they are. If it’s Lets get rid of the monarchy how is that going to be achieved. In fact, that argument isnt playing very well with the U.K. electorate as the party that is most in favour of the monarchy has been in power for 30 of the last 40 years.

Develop that line a bit further!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let those people who fawn over the Queen and Prince Philip (RIP) and Prince Charles and all the others let them do it.

No need to criticize. For one reason or another it gives them some pleasure, comfort maybe, harking to past times.

Let's just get shot of the same reasons for which Scotland is under English rule and then vote to get rid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you get rid of a monarchy? It seems to me that there are three possibilities: 1. Violent revolution. This is Great Britain, we don't do things like that. 2. The ruling monarch decides to quit. No sign of that happening any time soon. In any case, as when Edward VIII did it, there is always someone can be found to come off the bench to take over. 3. Election of a political party pledged to abolish the monarchy. As noted above, all the major political parties in Britain currently support continuation of the monarchy. Perhaps we should consider why this is so. It is because to go into an election with a manifesto promising to abolish the monarchy would bring certain defeat. This is because all the signs are that the overwhelming majority of the British public continue to support a system that has a head of state that is above party politics, as opposed to the prospect of eleven years of an all-powerful President Thatcher or President Blair.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...