Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Reluctant Hero

Pupils to take oath of allegiance

This must be right up there with Identity Cards as one of the most stupidest ideas ever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7287984.stm

Pupils 'to take allegiance oath'
   
School-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country, says a report commissioned by Gordon Brown on British citizenship.
Report author, ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith, says it would give teenagers a sense of belonging.

Council tax and student fee rebates are suggested for people who volunteer - as well as a "Britishness" public holiday.

The PM's spokesman said he welcomed the "interesting" review, adding that it had sparked "quite a lively debate".

However, John Dunford from the Association of School and College leaders said the citizenship ceremony was "a half-baked idea".

Graduation ceremonies

A Scottish Government spokesman said it did not support the plan and did not believe it would find favour with parents or school pupils.

Welsh Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones said: "I don't think that's appropriate myself."

And Labour peer Baroness Kennedy said: "I think this is a serious mistake - I think it's puerile and I think it's rather silly.

CITIZENSHIP - KEY POINTS
Citizenship ceremonies for all young people - with possible inclusion of oath of allegiance to Queen
A British national day by 2012, linked to Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee
Scrapping or reforming ancient laws of Treason
Tuition fee and council tax rebates for volunteers
'Language loans' for newcomers to help them learn English


At-a-glance: Citizenship plans

"The symbols of a healthy democracy are not to be found in empty gestures and I'm afraid I see this as an empty gesture."

Lord Goldsmith, who quit government in June, believes that citizenship ceremonies for teenagers would help improve their sense of what it means to be a British citizen.

"Certainly there isn't a crisis of national identity, but the research does tend to show there's been a diminution in national pride, in this sense of belonging," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The citizenship ceremonies, which are just one of the many things I have suggested, are a way of marking that passage of being a student of citizenship to a citizen in practice.

"It does make sense to promote a sense of shared belonging, a sense that you are part of a community with a common venture, to integrate better newcomers to our society and be clearer about what the rights and responsibilities are."

Lord Goldsmith said that while he favours an oath of allegiance to the Queen, the statement could be a pledge of commitment to the country or a statement of what the rights and responsibilities of citizens are.


What do teeenagers think?


In pictures


He also stressed that he could not see why Republicans would not want to swear an oath, even though they may not believe in the present system of government.

However, Graham Smith of the group Republic, which campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy, questioned whether children who refuse to take part will be told "they are somehow less British or less loyal or less patriotic".

Shadow justice secretary Nick Herbert said people would see straight through "synthetic patriotism" and that it was "profoundly un-British" to make them swear oaths of allegiance.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said taking an active role in society was a better way of creating a sense of belonging for teenagers than asking people to swear allegiance.

Bank holiday

Citizenship ceremonies already exist for immigrants and the report suggests holding them in schools, where youngsters who are about to leave the school and move on to work or further education could participate.


HAVE YOUR SAY
What about swearing allegiance to the country instead of the Queen?
JP, London
Send us your commentsLord Goldsmith says a new British national day should be established by 2012 to coincide with the Olympics and what will be the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

It could operate in the same way as Australia Day, which is a public holiday on 26 January and is used to celebrate what it means to be an Australian.

And young people who volunteer could receive a reduction in tuition fees, while others who work in the community could be given a small council tax rebate.

A new "Deliberation Day" would be held before each General Election to encourage political debate and other events.

The peer also proposed that ministers should consider withdrawing Commonwealth and Irish citizens' right to vote in UK elections.

 
Is it really un-British to celebrate Britishness?

BBC political editor Nick Robinson


Read Nick's thoughts in full  

But campaign group Unlock Democracy described this as a "gross insult to expect soldiers to die for this country while removing their right to have a say".

Lord Goldsmith has called for Britain's old treason laws to be scrapped or reformed. At the moment they include sleeping with the wife of the heir to the throne, which is punishable by life in prison.

The peer has also hinted at updating the national anthem by removing verses which are rarely performed.
Economist

I think the bucketloads of scorn poured on this, from just about everybody with an opinion, is enough to sink this silly proposal. It is pure and meaningless gimmickry - nothing less.

There's one thing for sure I certainly wouldn't swearing my loyalty to the United Kingdom or the Queen. I wouldn't support such a venture in an independent Scotland either.

Indeed if it did go ahead - where does it leaves those of us, like myself, who don't support the United Kingdom, the monarchy and are simply not British?
mairead

Another Brownload of B...s...
Aventinian

mairead wrote:
Another Brownload of B...s...


It wasn't Brown who suggested this, it was the brainchild of Lord Goldsmith.

Economist wrote:
Indeed if it did go ahead - where does it leaves those of us, like myself, who don't support the United Kingdom, the monarchy and are simply not British?


Marginalised. See the flaws in this 'nationalism' lark you've been suggesting? Or do you only see negatives in other strains of it?
Economist

Aventinian wrote:
Marginalised. See the flaws in this 'nationalism' lark you've been suggesting? Or do you only see negatives in other strains of it?


I doubt it would leave one marginalised. It would be an infringement upon one's liberty if they aren't British (like myself) don't believe in the UK or even the monarchy. Rightly or wrongly, many Scots don't see themselves as British these days - which is an individual choice - firstly, secondly and lastly.

What nationalism lark have I been suggesting Aventinian? I thought I'd made clear to you in other threads, that the "nationalism" I subscribe to is liberal, civic and open and bears no relationship to the state whatsoever.

Yes I do see negative strains in forms of nationalism, which is why I don't support them. For example, I find the form of cultural nationalism that primarily derives its integrity from the unity of a political state to be inherently flawed. Similarly "exclusive" nationalism is negative.

However, that isn't unique. I see negative strains in capitalism, although I generally support that form of economic system. I see negative strains in democracy, even though I am a democrat. It really isn't that difficult when it boils down to personal choice and liberty.
RadgeJougal

Aventinian

Economist wrote:
What nationalism lark have I been suggesting Aventinian? I thought I'd made clear to you in other threads, that the "nationalism" I subscribe to is liberal, civic and open and bears no relationship to the state whatsoever.


Yes it does. You're arguing for a Scottish nation-state. It is basically your raison d'etre.

You simply refuse to acknowledge your most fundamental of nationalisms as in any way harmful because it suits your identity.
Holebender

And you simply refuse to acknowledge any form of nationalism can be in any way good because it doesn't suit your prejudices.
Economist

Aventinian wrote:
Yes it does. You're arguing for a Scottish nation-state. It is basically your raison d'etre.


No. I am arguing for political and economic independence for Scotland, simply because politically and economically I see that as the most advantageous way forward.

The identity side of things troubles me a great deal less. I reject the notion of Britishness and union and do so while the United Kingdom is in "existence" and would still do so if it ceased to exist or even if I emigrated to Timbuktu. Ergo, the change in political status will have no effect on my identity or nationalism. In that way I do not derive the legitimacy of my identity or nationalism from the political state, however it is constructed at any time. That is a legitimate choice and form of personal freedom and liberty. I'll identify how I like, and no state, individual, pen-pushing bureaucrat or government issued booklet, whatsoever, will dictate to me otherwise.

Aventinian wrote:
You simply refuse to acknowledge your most fundamental of nationalisms as in any way harmful because it suits your identity.


If that is the case for me, then as Holebender says, right back at ya.
George

Aventinian wrote:

Marginalised. See the flaws in this 'nationalism' lark you've been suggesting? Or do you only see negatives in other strains of it?


Eh? what sort of 'nationalism' lark has someone been suggesting?  Have the SNP, or someone on this forum, proposed that every schoolchild swear a similar oath of allegiance?

Are you being naughty here?  Are you taking an actual statement from a British Nationalist and Royalist and trying to suggest, with no evidence whatsoever, that practices of this sort are favourable amongst independence supporters?
kevin04

just gazed through the BBC forums and  this idea looks like a completely non-starter to begin with a huge majority finding this proposal unattractive,
Corby Boy

I don't know anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

There certainly is not a ground swell of support in England for it either.

Another case of the current administration being completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

A more popular move down here would be to try and fix the anomaly that is the West Lothian question and give England devolution also. But then that would kill Labour forever in England and be a further push for the break up of the UK.
Lochaber

kevin04 wrote:
just gazed through the BBC forums and  this idea looks like a completely non-starter to begin with a huge majority finding this proposal unattractive,

That's very encouraging - for this affair is yet again another example of New Labour having fascistic instincts.  (Mussolini required all teachers in schools and universities to swear an oath).

We now can see a pattern emerge which began with New Labour's use of symbols such as Fitz the Bulldog and the Union flag followed by the use of Mussolini's term - "The Third Way" - to describe their conversion to right-wing economic policies. (Even the name "New Labour" has chilling connotations of the Nazi "Neue Ordnung" - "New Order").

New Labour are treading a dangerous path.
mairead

No youngster should be swearing any oath other that at the Brownies, Guides, Scouts etc. It's a totally ridiculous scenario.
skip

i left the scouts after my first visit. i couldn't bring myself to join and pledge to do my duty to serve the queen and be obedient, etc. i never wanted to say a lot of tripe i never believed in and they wouldn't take anyone who wasnt prepared to repeat the tripe.
Aventinian

Lochaber wrote:
That's very encouraging - for this affair is yet again another example of New Labour having fascistic instincts.  (Mussolini required all teachers in schools and universities to swear an oath).


Godwin's Lesser Known Brother's Law?

I remind you that we, Scotland and Britain generally, used oaths in education long, long before that.

Quote:
We now can see a pattern emerge which began with New Labour's use of symbols such as Fitz the Bulldog and the Union flag


Yeah, except almost every political party in history has used their national flag in campaigning.

While we're at it:



SNP logo



Odal rune, symbol used by Neo-Nazi and other fascist organisations.

Two can play your game.

Quote:
followed by the use of Mussolini's term - "The Third Way" - to describe their conversion to right-wing economic policies.


It was not Mussolini's term, it originated more than a century before that time and - more importantly - simply describes a middle ground between capitalism and socialism - usually an excuse for populism in my book.

Quote:
(Even the name "New Labour" has chilling connotations of the Nazi "Neue Ordnung" - "New Order").


I think you must have Nazis on the brain. I'm afraid I can't see the similarities between New Order and New Labour at all, other than the prefixing word - a very common one in the English language. Perhaps akin to comparing the Scottish National Party with the British or South African National Parties...

Indeed, it seems somewhat akin to those conspiracy nuts who point to the use of 'new world order' in the preface to the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. In fact, this is even more ridiculous.

There, I think that's another post torn to shreds. Hope you have a pleasant evening. [/img]
RadgeJougal

Aye right - the SNP logo comes from the thistle. Maybe you're too thick to work that one out.

By the way, what's that Ruritanian flag you've got as your logo? It looks like something out of a bad 1950s comedy film.
Lochaber

Aventinian wrote:
Lochaber wrote:
That's very encouraging - for this affair is yet again another example of New Labour having fascistic instincts.  (Mussolini required all teachers in schools and universities to swear an oath). We now can see a pattern emerge which began with New Labour's use of symbols such as Fitz the Bulldog and the Union flag

Yeah, except almost every political party in history has used their national flag in campaigning.

Anyone who takes more than a shallow interest in politics will know that the flag traditionally associated with the Labour party has been the "Red Flag" (written in 1889 by the Irish Journalist, Jim Connell). The introduction of the Union flag into Labour Party conferences therefore represents a considerable political and cultural shift for the Labour party. For example, Brian Iddon, the Labour Member of Parliament for Bolton South-East said in the House of Commons, only two weeks ago (28 February 2008) "I am one of those Red Flag-singing comrades and if the House would like a rendition now I will do my best."

More than one independent analyst has discerned an association of New Labour with Mussolini-style politics. For example, Nick Cohen, writing in the Observer (Tony's new best friend, Sunday March 17 2002)
Nick Cohen wrote:
Blair and, I regret to say, Gordon Brown are now at one with the heirs of Mussolini...

Alternately, see Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Guardian, Thursday March 31 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/mar/31/election2005.uk2

Geoffrey Wheatcroft wrote:
Over the years of Blair's leadership, he and his cabal have themselves regularly echoed the rhetoric of fascism, from "New Labour" (as in Neue Ordnung) to "the third way", a phrase much used by fascists in the interwar years. At one time, the Blairites liked to tell us that we lived in a Young Country. Quite apart from the fact that this is simply wrong in terms of history or demography, it recalled Giovinezza, or Youth, the marching song of Mussolini's Blackshirts


Are New Labour simply seeking to appeal to the more shallow-mided elector for whom waving a flag is important? It would be nice to think that's all it is - but, unfortunately, we have also seen a diminution in basic legal rights (such as detention without trial, right to jury trial, Trade Union rights to strike, etc.). It's very worrying!
Aventinian

Lochaber wrote:
Anyone who takes more than a shallow interest in politics will know that the flag traditionally associated with the Labour party has been the "Red Flag"


And they now find themselves as an elected government largely on the basis of changing from the party they once were.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft wrote:
Over the years of Blair's leadership, he and his cabal have themselves regularly echoed the rhetoric of fascism, from "New Labour" (as in Neue Ordnung) to "the third way", a phrase much used by fascists in the interwar years. At one time, the Blairites liked to tell us that we lived in a Young Country. Quite apart from the fact that this is simply wrong in terms of history or demography, it recalled Giovinezza, or Youth, the marching song of Mussolini's Blackshirts


Luckily you didn't decided to paraphrase that last second for your post - it really is the most ridiculously tenuous link yet.

Quote:
Are New Labour simply seeking to appeal to the more shallow-mided elector for whom waving a flag is important?


Probably, and to try and drop their left wing image.

Quote:
we have also seen a diminution in basic legal rights (such as detention without trial, right to jury trial, Trade Union rights to strike, etc.). It's very worrying!


The Labour Party was the first to incorporate a modern instrument of human rights into British law; for all my criticisms of them, Blair's first term earns my hearty respect for that.

There never has been a right to freedom from detention without trial, or the right to trial by jury, in British law. At least post-1998, there is some protection to the liberty of the individual.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
Aye right - the SNP logo comes from the thistle. Maybe you're too thick to work that one out.

By the way, what's that Ruritanian flag you've got as your logo? It looks like something out of a bad 1950s comedy film.


Talk about toys out of the pram. Perhaps you should start taking deep breaths before posting.
Cymro

This has to be up there with one of the stupides vilest 'policy ideas' Labour has come up with in recent times.

What should people who don't want to take an oath to the head of a Christian Denomination be forced to do so just to prove they are proud to be British?

Why should a Republican take an oath to a Monarchy to prove they are proud to be British?

Why should people who don't regard themselves as British be forced to say they are? Doesn't that make a mockery of all those that are genuinly proud to be British?

God, I wish I was back 8 years in school and they wanted to force me to do this. I'd be so proud to stand up and refuse.

Are we all going to be better behaved just be saying "yup, I'm proud to be a Brit me. The Queen, she's great"?

There are also parts of Wales where in order to intergrate into the community and increase your ability to work and contribute to the local community where you need to be able to speak Welsh. Are Labour going to release extra funds to do this while doing likewise for the English language? I think not. Dick heads
RadgeJougal

I think you speak for many people, Cymro, not just in Wales, but here too, and even in England.

Aventinian wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
Aye right - the SNP logo comes from the thistle. Maybe you're too thick to work that one out.

By the way, what's that Ruritanian flag you've got as your logo? It looks like something out of a bad 1950s comedy film.


Talk about toys out of the pram. Perhaps you should start taking deep breaths before posting.


What's this for? The remark on your obvious lack of independent reasoning, or the Ruritanian remark? What is that flag anyway? Looks like something out of a bad board game.

As it happens, even the current logos of the Lib Dems and Tories have resemblence to far right iconography.
Aventinian

Cymro wrote:
What should people who don't want to take an oath to the head of a Christian Denomination be forced to do so just to prove they are proud to be British?


We already insist all naturalising immigrants take an oath to the Queen and have done for time immemorial, as far as I'm aware. The Blair government added an oath to the United Kingdom to that too.

Quote:
Why should a Republican take an oath to a Monarchy to prove they are proud to be British?


I'd argue that a Republican should, despite who they believe should be head of state, support the monarch within reason - regardless of their choice disputes, the Queen is head of state, the focus of unity for the nation and has pledged to govern for their sake.

Just as the Nationalists got pissy when the UK Government didn't accord Alex Salmond the proper degree of respect when he was elected as First Minister. I agreed with that to some extent, I have to say.

Then again, in my experience most Republicans are very immature indeed.

Quote:
Why should people who don't regard themselves as British be forced to say they are? Doesn't that make a mockery of all those that are genuinly proud to be British?


The oath of allegiance doesn't have any content that speaks of nation or country, it is simply an oath to the Queen and her heirs and successors.

As for why - because nations are largely fictitious and it is only through things like this that people actually develop a national identity. Why do you think the SNP are so keen to paint everything in the saltire and attach the word "Scottish" to anything they can?
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
As it happens, even the current logos of the Lib Dems and Tories have resemblence to far right iconography.


What? A picture of a tree is 'far right iconography'?

Speaking of reasoning, I would assume anyone who used criteria to define 'far right iconography' that resulted in every party in his country being accused of using it, would perhaps realise his conclusion was ridiculous and redefine that original criteria.

The flag, as I suspect you well know considering the long discussion that were held here on the topic, is the flag of Angus. I think it's an excellent heraldic design.
Lord Pitsligo

So, do they want the Scots to pledge allegiance to Qeen Elizabeth the Second?
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So, do they want the Scots to pledge allegiance to Qeen Elizabeth the Second?


I don't know. The one used by members of Parliament is:

"I ____ swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

or

"I ..... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law"

However the one used for immigration purposes is:

"I (name) 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."

So it could go either way. I think the addition of 'the Second' (quite correctly) is more common. It is included, for example, in the armed forces oath.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So, do they want the Scots to pledge allegiance to Qeen Elizabeth the Second?


I don't know. The one used by members of Parliament is:

"I ____ swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

or

"I ..... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law"

However the one used for immigration purposes is:

"I (name) 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."

So it could go either way. I think the addition of 'the Second' (quite correctly) is more common. It is included, for example, in the armed forces oath.


But there is no Queen Elizabeth the Second of Britain.
Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote about his chosen symbol  "The flag" (snip irrelevant bit" "is the flag of Angus".

No, it isn't. It is the flag of a political party, the so-called "Angus Alliance". For further information, I will quote from two of my own letters which appeared in a number of Angus papers, the first sent by me on 7th January: and the second sent by me on 19th January. None of the supporters of the fraudulent "Angus" flag have ever been able to answer the points I made then, through any of the Angus local papers.  

Here is the first, dated 7th January:

"Today, there is only one Independent member of Angus Council  -  Bob Spink of Arbroath. ALL the others are members of one party or the other. Not one single member of the Council was elected on a manifesto of replacing the Scottish flag with a new flag most folk in Angus had never even heard of. Yet AFTER last May’s elections, a new political party was formed with this is its most distinctive policy. Provost Ruth Leslie Melville says she is 'not interested in controversy'.  Stubbornly persisting with an undemocratic and unpopular course of action is, by definition, controversial. What she means is she is not interested in the views of the public (including some of her own constituents). I am neither a member nor a supporter of any political party, but I am a critic of the arrogance, insensitivity, and sheer incompetence shown by Ruth Melville, Bob Myles, and other councillors on this issue. Whether they like it or not, sooner or later they are going to have to pay attention. Yes, I think a solution to this question is possible, and yes, I think it will involve both the Scottish flag and an Angus flag  -  but NOT the Angus flag on offer at present. That flag is too 'fussy' to make an easily marketable symbol, and too divisive to ever enjoy general support. I think an open invitation should be issued for members of the public to try to design a flag for Angus. There should then be widespread democratic consultation on the results of this. Only then will it be possible to have an Angus flag which will genuinely have the support of the people of this county to fly alongside the Saltire."  

and the second, dated 19th January:

"A couple of months ago an Arbroath restaurant introduced its own version of an 'Angus flag', featuring an Arbroath smokie, a Forfar bridie, a strawberry and a raspberry. As well as looking tastier than the 'official' version, this flag also had two other advantages. (1) It actually represented something about Angus, and (2) since the bridie was first created in honour of the great victory which King Bridei of the Picts had won over the invading Northumbrians near Forfar, this flag actually had a genuine link with our ancient history.

Bruce Middleton (Herald, 18 Jan) is wrong in thinking that the only problems with the flag now being foisted on us are its cost and the question of the national flag. There are more fundamental objections than these. Mr Middleton asks 'what’s wrong with the new flag?'

Well, for a start, the claim that it’s 'the Angus flag' is false. It’s a fake, a pseudo-baronial fraud being foisted on us. Secondly, it’s undemocratic. Not one single member of Angus Council was elected on a manifesto of introducing this new flag, yet, AFTER last May’s election, a new Alliance Party was formed with this as its only distinctive policy. Thirdly, it glorifies a bunch of aristocratic thugs, some of whom, quite frankly, were a disgrace. Fourthly, it does not 'represent' Angus in any meaningful way.

Let the kids in Angus schools have a go at designing a new flag. I’m sure they couldn’t possibly come up with anything as bad as this one."
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
But there is no Queen Elizabeth the Second of Britain.


Yes there is, the Queen's style, by her own validation, is Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom etc.
Aventinian

Dave Coull wrote:
Aventinian wrote about his chosen symbol  "The flag" (snip irrelevant bit" "is the flag of Angus".

No, it isn't. It is the flag of a political party, the so-called "Angus Alliance".  


Look, we all know you talk out of your arse, twist words to mean whatever you fancy and have absolutely no sense of objective reality, but this is simply bullshit that I won't waste another minute of my time on.

Direct your easily exposable lies and overwhelming ignorance elsewhere.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
But there is no Queen Elizabeth the Second of Britain.


Yes there is, the Queen's style, by her own validation, is Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom etc.


So who was Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain?
Dave Coull

Aventinian referred to the flag he supports as “the Angus flag”. I said no, it’s merely the flag of a political party calling itself  “the Angus Alliance”. He now refers to “your easily exposable lies”.

(1) a lie is a deliberate untruth. If somebody says “The Earth is flat”, then, no matter how many billions of people point out that loads of folk have sailed around the world and found no “edge”, if the person making the statement actually believes it, then they are not lying.

(2) if the case for saying the so-called “Angus flag” is nothing of the kind is so “easily exposable”, then, how come, in the numerous Angus papers which have printed my arguments for that case, nobody has ever attempted to “expose” that case as wrong?
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So who was Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain?


Right, a lesson in monarchical styling:

The monarch can choose whatever style she sees fit. It is a matter of her own prerogative; as such, there being an Elizabeth II of the UK does not imply there was necessarily ever an Elizabeth I. Equally the fact that Edward I of England styled himself so does not mean the previous Edwards disappeared from history.

However there is quite sensible logic behind it. The higher regnal number from any of the Kingdoms is chosen. So Elizabeth II, while only the first Elizabeth of Britain, is the second Elizabeth in Britain.

She is undoubtedly and beyond question correctly styled as Elizabeth II.

Dave Coull wrote:
Aventinian referred to the flag he supports as “the Angus flag”. I said no, it’s merely the flag of a political party calling itself  “the Angus Alliance”.


There is no such political party, and that flag is the only correct flag attributed the council area of Angus, which is very easily verifiable in the Scottish armorial register. It is also, quite notably, by no means new.

Quote:
(2) if the case for saying the so-called “Angus flag” is nothing of the kind is so “easily exposable”, then, how come, in the numerous Angus papers which have printed my arguments for that case, nobody has ever attempted to “expose” that case as wrong?


Ignorance? Moreover, I note the papers have a tendency to air your views for the purposes of ridicule.

Incidentally, your ability to lie to yourself as well as everyone else does not make something any less a lie, it simply makes you a bit barmy.
Dave Coull

I wrote that the so-called "Angus flag" is merely the flag of a political party calling itself  “the Angus Alliance”.  Aventinian says

"There is no such political party"

Look, if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then, regardless of what it calls itself,  it's a duck. Statement of fact, there is only one Independent member of Angus Council, Bob Spink. All the other councillors are members of one political party or the other.  

"that flag is the only correct flag attributed the council area of Angus, which is very easily verifiable in the Scottish armorial register."

I don't care if it's in the register of hatches, matches, and dispatches. That flag has no support from the people of Angus. Not one single member of Angus Council was elected on a manifesto of introducing the new flag, yet, after last May’s elections, a new political party was formed with this is its most distinctive policy. Yes, I think an Angus flag is a possibility  -  but not the "Angus flag" on offer at present. That flag is too "fussy" to make an easily marketable symbol, and too divisive to ever enjoy general support. I think an open invitation should be issued for members of the public in Angus, and the kids in Angus schools, to try to design a flag for Angus. There should then be widespread democratic consultation on the results of this. Only then will it be possible to say we have an Angus flag.  

I asked "if the case for saying the so-called 'Angus flag' is nothing of the kind is so 'easily exposable', then, how come, in the numerous Angus papers which have printed my arguments for that case, nobody has ever attempted to 'expose' that case as wrong?"

Aventinian says

"I note the papers have a tendency to air your views for the purposes of ridicule. "

That was just one notorious paper, which, incidentally, got every single thing it attributed me as saying wrong.  The local papers in Angus welcome letters from readers, and print both sides of an argument. It's just that, so far as the folk in Angus are concerned, the case against the new flag is unanswerable.
Lochaber

Cymro wrote:
... I wish I was back 8 years in school and they wanted to force me to do this. I'd be so proud to stand up and refuse.

Precisely! In the absence of a democratic ballot on the futures of Wales and Scotland - it would be a main area of opposition. Smarter thinkers in government will no doubt realise this and are likely to recommend binning the scheme.  The Queen's advisers seems to:
Press Association wrote:
In an unusual intervention, a royal spokesman told the Mail on Sunday newspaper: "What we would like to say is that Buckingham Palace was not consulted with regard to the Goldsmith review."

What would the government do about those who dissent from taking such an oath?

Writing in his Guardian article A battle between liberty and authoritarianism, the Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy wrote
Charles Kennedy wrote:
Labour - which had a proud libertarian tradition when Roy Jenkins was home secretary in the 1960s - is now the party of authoritarianism. The prime minister embodies a shift that is becoming a defining issue of our politics. We take for granted our freedom in this country, but at our peril.

Kennedy cites, as a cause for concern, the heavy-handed expulsion of Walter Wolfgang - the 82 year old Labour Party member - from Labour's conference in 2005.

In a speech (23.1.06) against the introduction of identity cards, which he claims contains measures which "have the elements of a fascist state", the former Labour MP for Swindon, Lord Stoddart said
Quote:
... the fact of the matter is that there is a creeping competence for all kinds of authorities in this country to have control over the individual.
Let us consider some of the incidents of late. An author on the BBC makes a certain statement about homosexuals and before long the police are telephoning her or are on her doorstep asking her to justify those statements. That is just one instance. The police are becoming the arbiters of free speech. That is very serious indeed. Members of this House and of the House of Commons should understand exactly how their freedoms are being undermined by a host of measures which are coming forward piecemeal. If they do not do so they will find themselves in a state where the Government have complete and utter control over the individual; and, of course, in this country the freedom of the individual has always been the bedrock of our very democracy which we have exported, and still seek to export, to other countries. If we are not careful, there is a real danger that we shall be in the sort of society which many of us fought against in the last war.

I believe the author referred to by Lord Stoddart is the children rights author Llynnette Burrows
RadgeJougal

Aventinian wrote:
What? A picture of a tree is 'far right iconography'?


I was thinking of the old torch. The tree's a bit of a dud. I keep on forgetting they use it.

Quote:
The flag, as I suspect you well know considering the long discussion that were held here on the topic, is the flag of Angus. I think it's an excellent heraldic design.


No I didn't know. Are you from Angus?

Looks like something out of the Princess Diaries though...
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
I was thinking of the old torch. The tree's a bit of a dud. I keep on forgetting they use it.


The torch was a symbol of liberty.

Quote:
No I didn't know. Are you from Angus?


I am not. I simply liked the design, and I think it's quite a good statement about this politicised Scottishness being rammed down people's throats.

Quote:
Looks like something out of the Princess Diaries though...


I wouldn't know.  Wink
mairead

Indeed, Queen Elizabeth does call herself E11R, but as there has never been an Elizabeth 1st of Britain, the title is incorrect.
She is E11R of England and E1R of Britain. I suppose she could call herself Henry the ninth if she so desired, but that does not mean she is anymore than calling herself the second Elizabeth to reign in Britain makes that true.
There was NO Britain in the time of Elizabeth 1st of England.
Cymro

Avetinan, as per usual you're talking s***e. Had the SNP been arguing "people of Scotland should take an oath of allegience to Scotland" you'd be jumping around attacking it as yet another stupid idea by Nationalists and making your usual arguments that it's fascist etc. Now however it's a Brit thing getting Nats all worked up and you're supportive. That's a suprise!

Republicans should support the monarchy within reason? Well, I'd say taking an oath of allegiece is a few steps too far somehow.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So who was Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain?


Right, a lesson in monarchical styling:

The monarch can choose whatever style she sees fit. It is a matter of her own prerogative; as such, there being an Elizabeth II of the UK does not imply there was necessarily ever an Elizabeth I. Equally the fact that Edward I of England styled himself so does not mean the previous Edwards disappeared from history.

However there is quite sensible logic behind it. The higher regnal number from any of the Kingdoms is chosen. So Elizabeth II, while only the first Elizabeth of Britain, is the second Elizabeth in Britain.

She is undoubtedly and beyond question correctly styled as Elizabeth II.


So what your saying is the queen, like the rest of England, can't tell the difference between England and Britain?

Its all a bit like Idi Amin declaring himself king of Scotland and giving himself the VC. Time to get rid of them methinks.

I do think there's a difference between what a bunch of out of touch, over privileged parasites think, and what the people think. Trying to force the Scots to swear allegiance to lizzy the second is the quickest way to bring about a republic.

And on that note, I'd like to offer my full support to the idea!
Aventinian

Cymro wrote:
Avetinan, as per usual you're talking s***e. Had the SNP been arguing "people of Scotland should take an oath of allegience to Scotland" you'd be jumping around attacking it as yet another stupid idea by Nationalists and making your usual arguments that it's fascist etc. Now however it's a Brit thing getting Nats all worked up and you're supportive. That's a suprise!


I am not remotely supportive of the idea. Doesn't mean that half the arguments made against it aren't a load of s***e though.

Quote:
Republicans should support the monarchy within reason? Well, I'd say taking an oath of allegiece is a few steps too far somehow.


As would I, I imagine (unless they were in the active service of the state).

-------

mairead wrote:
Indeed, Queen Elizabeth does call herself E11R, but as there has never been an Elizabeth 1st of Britain, the title is incorrect.


There is only one correct title for the Sovereign, and that is the one which she designates herself. You may not like it, you may not think it consistent, but that categorically does not make it incorrect.

I personally believe that the current system of monarchical numbers was the only sensible one to adopt post-Union. I think most people, if objectively shown the facts, would come to this conclusion if they hadn't had it hammered into them at the Nationalist School of Fantasy Oppression.

Quote:
There was NO Britain in the time of Elizabeth 1st of England.


Oh, forgive me, yes - before 1707 we all lived in a fairyland of Scotch pixies and whisky swilling leprechauns (before they defected across the North Channel) with a great ocean between Scotland and England.

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So what your saying is the queen, like the rest of England, can't tell the difference between England and Britain?


I'm sure the Queen, like the vast majority of England (ie, those who aren't in some sort of residential care) are aware of the distinction between England and Britain.

If she was called Margaret and inevitably had to style herself Margaret II of the United Kingdom, would you be accusing her of not knowing the difference between Scotland and Britain?

Quote:
Its all a bit like Idi Amin declaring himself king of Scotland and giving himself the VC. Time to get rid of them methinks.


African dictators? I fully agree.

One of the excellent benefits of monarchy, that: you rarely get such people controlling the country.

Quote:
I do think there's a difference between what a bunch of out of touch, over privileged parasites think, and what the people think. Trying to force the Scots to swear allegiance to lizzy the second is the quickest way to bring about a republic

And on that note, I'd like to offer my full support to the idea!


And the infantile vitriol. Shake a Republican with some common sense and it usually comes out in the end.
Lord Pitsligo

[quote="Aventinian"]
Cymro wrote:

Oh, forgive me, yes - before 1707 we all lived in a fairyland of Scotch pixies and whisky swilling leprechauns (before they defected across the North Channel) with a great ocean between Scotland and England.


What kind of idiotic troll are you? Thee was no monarchy of the UK in the time of Elizabeth I - that's what I meant, do you always misunderstand people on purpose to avoid their point?

Quote:

I'm sure the Queen, like the vast majority of England (ie, those who aren't in some sort of residential care) are aware of the distinction between England and Britain.


In my experience, the English say England or Britain when they mean either. This is the experience of almost everyone I know.

Quote:

If she was called Margaret and inevitably had to style herself Margaret II of the United Kingdom, would you be accusing her of not knowing the difference between Scotland and Britain?


No, I was always taught to talk about "ames the 1st and 6th" in recognition of the union of the crown

Quote:

African dictators? I fully agree.

One of the excellent benefits of monarchy, that: you rarely get such people controlling the country.


There you go again, misunderstanding people on purpose to avoid their point. The monarchy still cost us money. Get rid of them too.

Quote:

And the infantile vitriol. Shake a Republican with some common sense and it usually comes out in the end.


They contribute nothing, yet take much at the expense of others. Many people I know use the word parasite to describe the royals.

While I appreciate you seem to think the royals rule us by divine decree, many people don't like them. I suggest you accept this.

Oh, and where was the common sense in your post?
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
What kind of idiotic troll are you? Thee was no monarchy of the UK in the time of Elizabeth I - that's what I meant, do you always misunderstand people on purpose to avoid their point?


Er, I wasn't replying to you, so quite what you meant isn't really a matter in contention.

Nice way to start a post though.

Quote:
In my experience, the English say England or Britain when they mean either. This is the experience of almost everyone I know.


That doesn't at all imply the distinction is lost upon them.

Quote:
No, I was always taught to talk about "ames the 1st and 6th" in recognition of the union of the crown


Yes, the United Kingdom was not formed by that point. While he claimed the subsidiary title of "King of Great Britain", his primary titles were in fact "King of Scotland" and "King of England", unlike the post-1707 monarchs who are very definately "King/Queen of the United Kingdom..."

My description of regnal numbering is fact, attested to by the Royal Household and the Lord Advocate.

Quote:
There you go again, misunderstanding people on purpose to avoid their point. The monarchy still cost us money. Get rid of them too.


No, I was misunderstanding your point on purpose to take the piss out of it. Quite different.

The monarchy cost you money, just as a president would - in fact, less if the presidencies of comparible states are anything to go by. You'll always need to fund a head of state. Meanwhile, the Queen does not receive a salary or any private income from her role.

The civil list payments (£8 million) were granted in exchange for the profits from the Crown Estate under an arrangement struck by George III in the mistaken belief he may end up bankrupt. Unfortunately, this wasn't entirely prudent as the Crown Estate now rakes in around £200 million in profit every year. This income is voluntarily surrendered every year to the Treasury.

So we could argue that the monarchy actually makes a large profit.

Quote:
They contribute nothing, yet take much at the expense of others. Many people I know use the word parasite to describe the royals.


They contribtue nothing? The Queen has devoted her life to the service of this country.

The people you hang around with are probably scum. Chances certainly are, if they hold opinions like that, they are somehow deficient as human beings. I suggest you find new ones.

Quote:
While I appreciate you seem to think the royals rule us by divine decree, many people don't like them. I suggest you accept this.


I don't, they rule by by entirely temporal legitimacy. This isn't the 16th century. You're a civil war and a revolution too late.

Most people are very much for the monarchy. I suggest you accept that.
Lord Pitsligo

I'll respond when I have more time, but in the meantime, I suggest you view this http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=27678
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
I'll respond when I have more time, but in the meantime, I suggest you view this http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=27678


Perhaps if you stop behaving like a petulant child mascarading ignorance and a lack of proper respect for sensible discourse then perhaps I would not be quite so curt with you.

In the meantime, however, I suggest you ram a stick up your arse.
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
I'll respond when I have more time, but in the meantime, I suggest you view this http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=27678


Perhaps if you stop behaving like a petulant child mascarading ignorance and a lack of proper respect for sensible discourse then perhaps I would not be quite so curt with you.

In the meantime, however, I suggest you ram a stick up your arse.


Yes, I bow to your superior intellect and master debating skills.
RadgeJougal

"The Queen has devoted her life to the service of this country. "

Hasn't had much choice, has she?
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
"The Queen has devoted her life to the service of this country. "

Hasn't had much choice, has she?


What? Other than abdication? No, from what I understand she feels bound to the role from a sense of duty. A virtually meaningless word to most of the public servants in this country today.
Lord Pitsligo

Yes, all those state banquets and tours of foreign countries, flying first class and staying in five star hotels must really be a drag.

And as for having all those servants, I just don't know how she copes.
RadgeJougal

Aventinian wrote:
RadgeJougal wrote:
"The Queen has devoted her life to the service of this country. "

Hasn't had much choice, has she?


What? Other than abdication? No, from what I understand she feels bound to the role from a sense of duty. A virtually meaningless word to most of the public servants in this country today.


I'm sure.

Choice between a lazy overpaid lifestyle, living in palaces, with fine dining three times a day, plus free overseas trips, lovely houses, servants and artworks etc

And being "normal".

Hmmm... I think she chose it because of duty. Don't you.  Rolling Eyes
RadgeJougal

"The torch was a symbol of liberty."

Also a symbol of Fascism, the Olympics, knowledge/science etc etc

"I am not. I simply liked the design, and I think it's quite a good statement about this politicised Scottishness being rammed down people's throats. "

A bit strange. Why don't you have an Edinburgh or Orkney flag? They're much better designed, and not particularly political or Scottish looking.
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Yes, all those state banquets and tours of foreign countries, flying first class and staying in five star hotels must really be a drag.

And as for having all those servants, I just don't know how she copes.


If you think a few state banquets and some working foreign jaunts are somehow recompense for having no control whatsoever over any aspect of your life, then I suggest you have very strange priorities indeed.

RadgeJougal wrote:
Choice between a lazy overpaid lifestyle, living in palaces, with fine dining three times a day, plus free overseas trips, lovely houses, servants and artworks etc


The Queen isn't paid a salary. As for being lazy - if you work an enormously stressful full time job when you are in your eighties, we'll perhaps see what you have to say for that.

As for fine dining, they eat cornflakes out of tuperware for breakfast.

Quote:
Hmmm... I think she chose it because of duty. Don't you.  Rolling Eyes


I do. Countless commentators have quite validly suggested that she didn't want to be Queen and that living in Malta as effectively a navy captain's wife was the happiest time of her life. The Royal Family are independently wealthy, it's not like she needs to be Queen to get her supper.

I wouldn't be King. Would you? I think you're just overwhelmed by a few colourful baubles, a free dinner and some flights abroad. That's usually what jealousy is: seeing and desiring the benefits without bothering to see the hard work behind it.
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
A bit strange. Why don't you have an Edinburgh or Orkney flag? They're much better designed, and not particularly political or Scottish looking.


Oh, I think the Edinburgh flag is simply awful. Can't help but cringe when I see it. Glasgow's is poor too. Aberdeen's is quite good.
Lord Pitsligo

I suggest we let her retire then.
Red Justice

The Queen of England lives amongst despicable wealth and opulance. A parasite living in a residence with hundreds of spare rooms when people are homless nowadays on this island they call the uk. Alex Salmond should get boots like mine to kick her arse out of Balmoral after independence.
Morph

I think i may be a good idea to turn Balmoral into a great hotel. I mean think of the media attention it would get and tourism would get a boost also.
Red Justice

I don't mind Morph I just want to see the end of second holiday homes in our nation Scotland.
Lochaber

The proposal for oaths to be taken by school leavers is now a dead duck - certainly in Scotland where it is, in any case, an issue for the Scottish Parliament to decide. Since the Scottish Government wouldn't allow it, it could only ever have been implemented by the combined parliamentary opposition of Labour, LibDems and Conservatives. Given the extraordinary intervention from the Palace and the overwhelming opposition of the people of Scotland, it's difficult to see how a parliamentary majority for the idea could now be constructed.
Alan Cochrane, Today's Telegraph wrote:
The same weekend opinion poll that showed Labour was now lagging 16 per cent behind the Tories in UK popularity, also revealed a majority of Scots were opposed to any idea of an oath of allegiance either to Queen and country (if that country was Britain) and a significant majority - nearly 70 per cent - opposed a national holiday for "Britain Day".
See "British nationalism? What a load of nonsense", Alan Cochrane Telegraph 18.03.08
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
The Queen of England lives amongst despicable wealth and opulance. A parasite living in a residence with hundreds of spare rooms when people are homless nowadays on this island they call the uk. Alex Salmond should get boots like mine to kick her arse out of Balmoral after independence.


You mean just like any President? Indeed, I don't think Alex Salmond - your apparently great Man of the People - is letting tramps camp out in his  multi-million pound official residence on Charlotte Square.

Also, on point of correction: there is no Queen of England any more, and the UK is not an island.

Red Justice wrote:
I don't mind Morph I just want to see the end of second holiday homes in our nation Scotland.


Just in case we thought you meant Bohemia, eh?

Is the emphasis on Scotland a racist sentiment? Are your objectives, as with some Nationalists, grounded in the fact that English people are buying second homes here and diluting the cultural purity?
Aventinian

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
I suggest we let her retire then.


But that's not remotely your view. As you've already exposed, you're very much twisted and filled with hate in relation to the monarchy.

I suggest we govern our country in the best way possible, and that involves monarchy.
Aventinian

Morph wrote:
I think i may be a good idea to turn Balmoral into a great hotel. I mean think of the media attention it would get and tourism would get a boost also.


Balmoral is private property. Now I'm sure our rather more red friends have no qualms with confiscating such things, and committing every other affront to liberty and human dignity imaginable, but if you seek to turn Scotland into some bizarre Socialist state, I don't imagine you'll be getting many tourists at all.
Morph

Im nt a socialist in the communist sense. Surely Balmoral, in the event of Scottish independence, would become public property and therefore could be managed by the Historic Scotland for the good of Scottish tourism
Cymro

Morph wrote:
Im nt a socialist in the communist sense. Surely Balmoral, in the event of Scottish independence, would become public property and therefore could be managed by the Historic Scotland for the good of Scottish tourism


No. It would just become the Private Residence of the Queen of Scotland - basically the same as now. Even if Scotland became a Republic it would probably still be classed as her Private Residence just like the other estates in Scotland - such as Donald Trumps.

Unless of course she sold it to the Scottish Nation, but can't see that happening.
Lochaber

Is everyone too occupied by in-fighting over the monarchy to notice that the Queen has scuppered the question of oaths? Smile
Lord Pitsligo

Lochaber wrote:
Is everyone too occupied by in-fighting over the monarchy to notice that the Queen has scuppered the question of oaths? Smile


A bit like Gordon Brown not calling the election?  Wink
Lord Pitsligo

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
I suggest we let her retire then.


But that's not remotely your view. As you've already exposed, you're very much twisted and filled with hate in relation to the monarchy.

I suggest we govern our country in the best way possible, and that involves monarchy.


No, having the queen retire is a view acceptable to me, as with Charles in charge the monarchy'll last about a week.

Please don't try to tell me what my views are, I wouldn't want to mistake you for a troll Wink

And why do we need a monarchy? What would we have without them?
Red Justice

Aventinian wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
The Queen of England lives amongst despicable wealth and opulance. A parasite living in a residence with hundreds of spare rooms when people are homless nowadays on this island they call the uk. Alex Salmond should get boots like mine to kick her arse out of Balmoral after independence.


You mean just like any President? Indeed, I don't think Alex Salmond - your apparently great Man of the People - is letting tramps camp out in his  multi-million pound official residence on Charlotte Square.

I am not on this forum to defend Alex Salmond

Also, on point of correction: there is no Queen of England any more, and the UK is not an island.

I think the matter of the Queen being monarch of England has been discussed on this forum.
Red Justice wrote:
I don't mind Morph I just want to see the end of second holiday homes in our nation Scotland.


Just in case we thought you meant Bohemia, eh?

Is the emphasis on Scotland a racist sentiment? Are your objectives, as with some Nationalists, grounded in the fact that English people are buying second homes here and diluting the cultural purity?


No it is not a racist sentiment my sister lives where there are second homes nearby her I do not question the nationality of the occasional occupants. My point is not about race or culture it is about in this day and age, homelessness and shortage of affordable social housing there is no need for people from whereever to own a second property.
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
I am not on this forum to defend Alex Salmond


Well don't tout him in support of your views when he clearly isn't; and don't attempt to portray normality as something unusual.

Quote:
I think the matter of the Queen being monarch of England has been discussed on this forum.


I don't know, but the position of Queen of England doesn't exist.

Quote:
My point is not about race or culture it is about in this day and age, homelessness and shortage of affordable social housing there is no need for people from whereever to own a second property.


Fair enough. I disagree of course, but not to worry.
RadgeJougal

Aventinian wrote:
Balmoral is private property. Now I'm sure our rather more red friends have no qualms with confiscating such things, and committing every other affront to liberty and human dignity imaginable, but if you seek to turn Scotland into some bizarre Socialist state, I don't imagine you'll be getting many tourists at all.


As I expect you know. The Queen doesn't own it. It's LEASED!
Aventinian

RadgeJougal wrote:
As I expect you know. The Queen doesn't own it. It's LEASED!


No, it was leased briefly in the reign of Queen Victoria. Prince Albert purchased it. It belongs to his legitimate successor.

It was again purchased by George VI from the Duke of Windsor following the latter's abdication.
Red Justice

I like the idea of leased property. Would be nice to have an Independent Socialist Republic in Scotland that abolished private property and leased residential property through the state works well in Cuba.  Take back the land, big estates and all private property. Watch out for the Reds Mrs Windsor or Mr Trump!  Very Happy
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
I like the idea of leased property. Would be nice to have an Independent Socialist Republic in Scotland that abolished private property and leased residential property through the state works well in Cuba.  Take back the land, big estates and all private property. Watch out for the Reds Mrs Windsor or Mr Trump!  Very Happy


This is more or less why socialism is dead outside of the third world.
Rinty

Let's not pretend that an independent Scotland would be a socialist republic.  The best chance of independence right now seems to be through the SNP who are neither socialist nor republican.

The vote for the idea of an independent socialist republic in last years election was almost identical to the vote in 1999, just over 40,000 people in Scotland vote for that idea.  The 2003 vote now looks like a blip caused by the war in Iraq and a weak SNP under Swinneys leadership.

When Salmond returned to lead the SNP both the socialist and Green votes returned to almost identical figures to the 1999 election.

I am sure there are people in the SNP who lean towards more socialist or republican ideas than others but they are in a small minority.

Take last years bil from Tommy Sherian to renationalise the railways.  The SNP whipped their members so as not even one SNP MSP supported it at the first stage and it wouldnt get anywhere.  The later revelation that their election campaign was backed by Soutar, who has made vast profits from the de-regulation of public transpor,t perhaps explains this, but at the time the clear message from the SNP leadership was that support for ideas such as this wouldnt be tolerated.

If Scotland became independent tomorrow, Trump would still get the go-ahead, the queen would still be monarch and she would still own Balmoral.
Red Justice

Rinty wrote:
Let's not pretend that an independent Scotland would be a socialist republic.  The best chance of independence right now seems to be through the SNP who are neither socialist nor republican.

The vote for the idea of an independent socialist republic in last years election was almost identical to the vote in 1999, just over 40,000 people in Scotland vote for that idea.  The 2003 vote now looks like a blip caused by the war in Iraq and a weak SNP under Swinneys leadership.

When Salmond returned to lead the SNP both the socialist and Green votes returned to almost identical figures to the 1999 election.

I am sure there are people in the SNP who lean towards more socialist or republican ideas than others but they are in a small minority.

Take last years bil from Tommy Sherian to renationalise the railways.  The SNP whipped their members so as not even one SNP MSP supported it at the first stage and it wouldnt get anywhere.  The later revelation that their election campaign was backed by Soutar, who has made vast profits from the de-regulation of public transpor,t perhaps explains this, but at the time the clear message from the SNP leadership was that support for ideas such as this wouldnt be tolerated.

If Scotland became independent tomorrow, Trump would still get the go-ahead, the queen would still be monarch and she would still own Balmoral.


I entirely agree with what you have written Rinty. However it is important to realise that socialism is normally acheived through revolutionary change rather than simply by constitutional means. The SNP are a constitutional nationalist party but yes in the present political climate offer the best hope for independence. It would be up to organised working class through both the ballot box and people power to fight for a Socialist Republic after independence. A Scottish Republic will not happen with a few republicans in the SNP just as a socialist state in Britain cannot be created with a number of Bennites (followers of Tony Benn). I think however a move towards a Republic in the long term for Scotland would happen after independence just as it did in the south of Ireland 26 Counties but not obviously in the same way.

You are correct Rinty about Bills put forward when Tommy was MSP for instance the SNP would not support a Bill for a Scottish Service Tax.

I would not get too worried about the mere voting patterns for socialism. I am former SSP and always thought the idea should be that the ballot box helps to galvanise popular support for a socialist party but will hardly lead to socialist revolution. I advocate voting socialist in local elections and for a pro-independence party in Scottish elections. So if I lived in an area with a Solidarity comrade standing and I know he or she supports an independent socialist nuclear free Scotland (and would support independence and socialism) then I am happy to vote Solidarity in that instance rather than SNP in a Scottish election.

I am not under any illusion about the requirement for the Scottish Left to rebuild and I was impressed by the turn out by Solidarity on the Anti-War march in Glasgow last Saturday.

As for the SNP, Alex Salmond is a privy councillor (advisor to the queen) and the National Conversation document does not provide for breaking up the union of the crowns. As a socialist I am naturally republican and what I want and what I may get in my lifetime are two different things. It will not stop me keeping the faith and wanting socialist revolutionary change.

Donald Trump is a tycoon and I don't want him here or any DVD's about 'How to Get Rich Quick' by him or his ideas.

Of course immediately after independence we will have Windsor and Trump under present SNP thinking on simply Scottish independence. But that is not complete Scottish independence and that won't stop my kind agitating for a Scottish Socialist Republic in the longer term or for our future young people.

In the meantime I would advise young people to reject the British state and stuff any plans for Brown or unionists  to implement an oath of allegiance for school children it won't happen, I don't think in Scotland, Wales or anywhere else.
Red Justice

Aventinian wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
I like the idea of leased property. Would be nice to have an Independent Socialist Republic in Scotland that abolished private property and leased residential property through the state works well in Cuba.  Take back the land, big estates and all private property. Watch out for the Reds Mrs Windsor or Mr Trump!  Very Happy


This is more or less why socialism is dead outside of the third world.


Cuba for instance is ahead not only of the third world but Britain in terms of literacy, Education and Health. As a socialist country has better conditions for it's peoples than many Latin American countries do despite the US blockade. Av if you are going to start your socialism does not work ideas then join the boring tired elite Very Happy
Cymro

Red Justice wrote:
I like the idea of leased property. Would be nice to have an Independent Socialist Republic in Scotland that abolished private property and leased residential property through the state works well in Cuba.  Take back the land, big estates and all private property. Watch out for the Reds Mrs Windsor or Mr Trump!  Very Happy


Soory but I'd hate to see that happening. It would be awfull. People have worked hard for their private property - my father in law works all hours for his nice house and his workshop in Oban. Why should he loose that?

If you want an end to the large estates then allow the local community living within those estates to buy out the land as has been happening. That has to be the way forward not some illtohught, daft social buy out.

If the state does buy some of these estates it should be to preserve them as Historic Scotland sights.
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
Cuba for instance is ahead not only of the third world but Britain in terms of literacy, Education and Health. As a socialist country has better conditions for it's peoples than many Latin American countries do despite the US blockade. Av if you are going to start your socialism does not work ideas then join the boring tired elite Very Happy


Really? Better education system, eh? Please, feel free to point me in the direction of the Oxbridge of Cuba...

Out of curiosity, do you believe socialism will erupt in Britain in your lifetime?
Red Justice

Aventinian wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
Cuba for instance is ahead not only of the third world but Britain in terms of literacy, Education and Health. As a socialist country has better conditions for it's peoples than many Latin American countries do despite the US blockade. Av if you are going to start your socialism does not work ideas then join the boring tired elite Very Happy


Really? Better education system, eh? Please, feel free to point me in the direction of the Oxbridge of Cuba...

I think what is important is a good educational system (and