Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
jaggy

Roughie OBE

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I did in the next 2 lines.

And continued with the idea that it's been this way so long we can't change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

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

Not sure how proroguing Parliament undermines the monarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scotty said:

And continued with the idea that it's been this way so long we can't change it.

I didn’t say that. I said that the arguments haven’t convinced the electorate. What else do you have.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sivad said:

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.  

When the majority of the general public tire of the monarchy and cease to support it, then it could be on the downward spiral.  Surveys have shown that most support for it comes from the 65+ age group which is unsurprising.  But, that is of course, an ever-diminishing group. The young mainly tend to be disinterested or even against. A large number of the public are ambiguous-not particularly for or against, whilst a minority are definitely against. But,  on one thing, monarchists and republicans  are agreed-that is that the present monarch holds popularity that will not necessarily be given to her successor-her son Charles. Scandals have revolved around him and his brother Andrew over recent decades, and these have not ceased. The one affecting Andrew this year, will be one very hard to shake off. The phrase ‘annum horriblis’ entered the vocabulary precisely for these reasons. The royal family are often held up as being something ‘very special’, on a higher level than others. But, in recent times-they have been shown to be only too fallible, with ordinary human failings. And, ‘duty’ and ‘service’, two words often quoted when monarchy is mentioned,  have been clearly forgotten. At the moment, there ARE still more people across Britain who would say they support or don’t oppose the monarchy compared to those who reject it. But, crucially, these numbers have been changing and moving in the direction of opposition to monarchy over recent years. This could well continue, particularly as the monarchy will eventually lose its most popular asset. But, rather than being based around the current personalities, I myself am a republican because I believe in democracy, and accountability and am against the archaic notion of people being given power (and for life) and privilege based on who their father or mother happened to be. Those who lead us should be judged, based on their character, skills and abilities and elected. If we believe in equality, opportunities for advancement should be open to all, regardless of background, not just a select elite! As for President Thatcher or Blair, this old chestnut is always trotted out by monarchists. If the people could choose their own head of state, there could be many suitable candidates and some might not even have a political background at all. Crucially, if we didn’t like them, we could vote them out. If you end up with an unsuitable monarch, that is NOT an option. There are many excellent elected Heads of State in other countries who do a good job. Why not in Britain? Why can’t we throw off our archaic, imperialist, colonial, undemocratic  past and move into the modern world? Deference, patronage and judgements based on class and elitism, should be a thing of the past.

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

When the majority of the general public tire of the monarchy and cease to support it, then it could be on the downward spiral.  Surveys have shown that most support for it comes from the 65+ age group which is unsurprising.  But, that is of course, an ever-diminishing group. The young mainly tend to be disinterested or even against. A large number of the public are ambiguous-not particularly for or against, whilst a minority are definitely against. But,  on one thing, monarchists and republicans  are agreed-that is that the present monarch holds popularity that will not necessarily be given to her successor-her son Charles. Scandals have revolved around him and his brother Andrew over recent decades, and these have not ceased. The one affecting Andrew this year, will be one very hard to shake off. The phrase ‘annum horriblis’ entered the vocabulary precisely for these reasons. The royal family are often held up as being something ‘very special’, on a higher level than others. But, in recent times-they have been shown to be only too fallible, with ordinary human failings. And, ‘duty’ and ‘service’, two words often quoted when monarchy is mentioned,  have been clearly forgotten. At the moment, there ARE still more people across Britain who would say they support or don’t oppose the monarchy compared to those who reject it. But, crucially, these numbers have been changing and moving in the direction of opposition to monarchy over recent years. This could well continue, particularly as the monarchy will eventually lose its most popular asset. But, rather than being based around the current personalities, I myself am a republican because I believe in democracy, and accountability and am against the archaic notion of people being given power (and for life) and privilege based on who their father or mother happened to be. Those who lead us should be judged, based on their character, skills and abilities and elected. If we believe in equality, opportunities for advancement should be open to all, regardless of background, not just a select elite! As for President Thatcher or Blair, this old chestnut is always trotted out by monarchists. If the people could choose their own head of state, there could be many suitable candidates and some might not even have a political background at all. Crucially, if we didn’t like them, we could vote them out. If you end up with an unsuitable monarch, that is NOT an option. There are many excellent elected Heads of State in other countries who do a good job. Why not in Britain? Why can’t we throw off our archaic, imperialist, colonial, undemocratic  past and move into the modern world? Deference, patronage and judgements based on class and elitism, should be a thing of the past.

I agree with you that after the Queen, the appeal of the monarchy will diminish, certainly globally, if not in the UK. Where I disagree is that a Republic of Great Britain will be any better a place than the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I agree with you that after the Queen, the appeal of the monarchy will diminish, certainly globally, if not in the UK. Where I disagree is that a Republic of Great Britain will be any better a place than the UK.

Well, we can’t know  that, but should we be frightened to try? Isn’t modern democracy (though not perfect- I would choose PR, again not perfect, but IMO better the FPTP) an improvement and more ‘right’  than previous ways people were  governed in this country? Should we have stuck with only women over 28, married to men who owned property? Should we have stuck with only men voting? Should we have stuck with only men of property voting? Should we have stuck with only those men who owned large amounts of land being in charge? Arguments were made against any change to these ‘positions’ usually mostly from the Conservative/conservative side of opinion.  The conservative view is often one that is most against change. And that conservative/Conservative  view is the one most frightened to see the end of the monarchy. It is my belief one aspect of monarchy is that it holds us back in the past, perhaps even acting as an impediment to a country ‘growing up’ and being more truly democratic, and maybe even at ease with itself.  If democracy  is better than all alternatives when it comes to being governed. Why should it be  the case that it should be any different  with Heads of State? Why should we make an exception with one family in the country. And, why should we not be able to vote a HoS into and crucially OUT of the job? Knowing they have a job for life-any job-is something that is hard to justify, and extremely unhealthy when someone is first given a job.  Why should it be any different with a HoS? Why shouldn’t ALL leaders be ‘judged’ on the job they do, by those to whom they are accountable, periodically at the ballot box? Why should a cosseted member of a family, used to privilege,  luxury and riches, who knows nothing much about the way most people live their lives, their struggles, their problems be the exception?

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’re interested in the issue of monarchy or elected Head of State, go to YouTube. Key in ‘Abolish the Monarchy.’ Owen Jones Show. (This has just been put up on YouTube so is topical and relevant.) There you will find Owen Jones interviewing Graham Smith of ‘Republic’ the British organisation that is opposed to monarchy and campaigns against it and FOR a democratically-elected head of state. I have met Graham Smith as I was a member of Republic for a while. I still support it. He is an intelligent, down to earth person who argues but listens to counter-arguments. On this programme all the arguments/counter arguments are explored/discussed in a listenable, friendly way. The programme lasts for just over an hour and you can skip the last (approx. half) if you don’t want to hear about the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard case, the judgement and possible consequences for women mentally and physically abused by their male partners.

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s time to take this monarchy debate elsewhere. Nothing to do with PTFC or football in general apart from Roughie getting an MBE

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Roughie the only Partick Thistle player ever to make the honours list?

Perhaps a more appropriate honour would have been Knight of the Thistle.

I thought there was one for Muirhead, too, till I realised it was for Eve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sivad said:

Is Roughie the only Partick Thistle player ever to make the honours list?

Perhaps a more appropriate honour would have been Knight of the Thistle.

I thought there was one for Muirhead, too, till I realised it was for Eve.

There is ..’The Order Of The Thistle’!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2022 at 10:20 AM, sandy said:

I only liked Queen when Freddie Mercury was with them. 

To be fair, Adam Lambert does a pretty good job of filling in. Brian and Roger wouldn't accept it otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

To be fair, Adam Lambert does a pretty good job of filling in. Brian and Roger wouldn't accept it otherwise.

I think Paul Rodgers did a stint for ‘Queen’ for a while but I prefer him in a blues or blues/ rock combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

I think Paul Rodgers did a stint for ‘Queen’ for a while but I prefer him in a blues or blues/ rock combo.

That's right. PR wasn't bad, but somehow AL seems a better fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

That's right. PR wasn't bad, but somehow AL seems a better fit.

Free are one of my favourite bands and I have a lot of their recordings and that of Paul Rogers and Paul Kossoff. If you’re interested in rock music, you might like “The History Of Rock Music In 500 Songs”. This is a 500-episode blog that the person compiling it is devoting approx. 10 years to completing. All the episodes are/will be available on Spotify, to which I have a free subscription (incl. adverts) You can buy the £10 a month, Premium sub. (Without adverts) but I don’t mind putting up with the ads. to hear the content on here free. The programmes started back in the (I think) the 1930s, moving through each decade until now, we’re at around 1967/68. We’re on episode 148 or 149 and it is a work in progress-he makes new ones as he goes along. It will likely finish in the late 1990s or early 2000s. All the main bands, singers of the 60s I liked have been covered, though some bands get more than one episode-the Beatles will get eight, he said. Eg Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochrane, Everly Bros, Elvis, Shadows, Beatles, Searchers, Kinks, Who, Lovin’ Spoonful, Byrds, Stones, Beach Boys, Aretha Franklin, Zappa, Supremes, Four Tops etc etc The episodes started about half an hour each one, but more recently have grown to 90 mins! They can be very detailed/ comprehensive, but if he’s covering stuff in which you’re not interested, you can just move it on. 

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Free are one of my favourite bands and I have a lot of their recordings and that of Paul Rogers and Paul Kossoff. If you’re interested in rock music, you might like “The History Of Rock Music In 500 Songs”. This is a 500-episode blog that the person compiling it is devoting approx. 10 years to completing. All the episodes are/will be available on Spotify, to which I have a free subscription (incl. adverts) You can buy the £10 a month, Premium sub. (Without adverts) but I don’t mind putting up with the ads. to hear the content on here free. The programmes started back in the (I think) the 1930s, moving through each decade until now, we’re at around 1967/68. We’re on episode 148 or 149 and it is a work in progress-he makes new ones as he goes along. It will likely finish in the late 1990s or early 2000s. All the main bands, singers of the 60s I liked have been covered, though some bands get more than one episode-the Beatles will get eight, he said. Eg Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochrane, Everly Bros, Elvis, Shadows, Beatles, Searchers, Kinks, Who, Lovin’ Spoonful, Byrds, Stones, Beach Boys, Aretha Franklin, Zappa, Supremes, Four Tops etc etc The episodes started about half an hour each one, but more recently have grown to 90 mins! They can be very detailed/ comprehensive, but if he’s covering stuff in which you’re not interested, you can just move it on. 

Sounds interesting.

Wasn't there a tv programme that kind of combined football highlights and pop music of the day, from the 60s and 70s?

Don't remember if it was Scotland or Britain. I only saw a couple of them, but liked what I saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

Sounds interesting.

Wasn't there a tv programme that kind of combined football highlights and pop music of the day, from the 60s and 70s?

Don't remember if it was Scotland or Britain. I only saw a couple of them, but liked what I saw.

Good question. Music & football often fit. Remember the film about Zidane that used a soundtrack by Mogwai?

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×