Scottish "nationalists" win parliamentary majority for "independence" referendum

A republic sounds good. But what can you do for now... My guess is that if you had to choose between SNP and the monarchy you would still go the SNP way...

However... don't worry. Either way that monarchy you got up there isn't going to last much longer. It will be dissolved within your lifetime. Actually chances are it will happen much quicker and abruptly than anyone ever imagined.

Some of the greatest moments in history will be unfolding under our eyes. We should be proud of it. Future generations will only read about this 21st century in books (and watch it on YouTube possibly).

I'm just wondering... How is it going to continue to affect Scotland any more than it affects Australia or Canada. If the Scots vote yes, doesn't that mean you will be like Canada or Australia?

 

The SNP, most of them, support monarchy so anyone who chooses the SNP also chooses the monarchy. Anyone who goes the SNP way, also goes the monarchy way.

What I can do for now, is what any republican can do for now which is to oppose monarchy and oppose those like the SNP who support monarchy.

The monarchy will last as long as people support it, as long as people are in denial about supporting it while supporting it, and as long as people excusing their own inexcusable foolishness in supporting it.

Right now, I am not as optimistic as you. I do worry that people have bought into the lie that this referendum has not been rigged from start to finish to maintain the brainwashing of Scots and others into thinking that the Queen and monarchy can be imposed yet somehow either Scots or British or Canadians or Australians or anyone with that monarch as head of state can possibly, remotely be said to be truly "independent" yet denied the right of independent nations to elect their own heads of states.

"We know we have to deal with the world as it is but we do not have to accept the world as it is.

Imagine where we would be today if the brave founders of French liberty or of American liberty had simply been content with the world as it was.

They knew that history does not just happen; it is made. History is made by men and women of conviction of commitment and of courage who will not let their dreams be denied".​

Oh the monarchy would be equally devastating to Scottish national independence, freedom and prosperity as it is devastating to Canadian and Australian national independence, freedom and prosperity.

Scottish Queen's ministers would be independent but Scots would be subjugated and denied national independence.

Just as now Australian and Canadian Queen's ministers are independent but Australians and Canadians are subjugated and denied national independence.

Yes. Equally disadvantaged by grotesquely incompetent royalist rule and subject to royal deaths, disasters and missed opportunities.

Like so many others you are confusing state independence with national independence. A nation cannot be independent if it is people are oppressed, enslaved, jailed, tortured and murdered for daring to try to be part of a democratic government of all the people.

You seem to think that the British people are now independent. We are not. I am British too. I am denied British national independence today. The UK state is independent. The Queen's UK ministers are independent. The British people are not independent, we are all subjugated, except the few who are part of the royalist elite who call the shots in Britain today.

Most people never really challenge the powers that be and get oppressed so they don't notice the points I am making.

 

I was quoting Condoleezza Rice there.

 

Well you should. Times are changing. The world is changing. That monarchy is crumbling trust me.

Don't tell me Westminster is still making legislation for Canada and Australia even today...

Regarding that monarchy...if you look historically at it, it is a very criminal monarchy. It has done so many crimes in the past it is close to a miracle it's still there, not to mention venerated by some. I have a long list of crimes against humanity explicitly conducted by that crown in times as modern as the 19th and 20th century.

The Nazis have killed about 6 million Jews in a few years. The British imperialists have killed in the 19th and 20th century alone waaaaaayyyy more than that and they didn't do it quickly either!! It is so stunning how the figures are there, accurately recorded and with all the evidence yet nobody talks about it. In exchange people point the finger at the Nazis as if there is any difference. This is perhaps due to the British crimes having happened over a longer period of time, in a much rarefied manner, in a time with less media than the 40s.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh thanks for pointing it out.

 

I won't trust you. Do you have a sister, female cousin or friend who is single and wants to meet a brave-hearted Scotsman like me? If so, I might trust her.

I told you the exact opposite. I said Canadian and Australian ministers are independent. The parliaments are independent of the Westminster parliament.

Please don't try to pretend I am telling you the exact opposite of what I am telling you.

The point I am making, and you are missing, is that the parliaments are dependent on the state and the state is independent of the democratic governance of the people, despite rigged elections, where republicans get banned from the broadcasting media most of the time and banned from parliament if they dare to demonstrate independence from the monarchy and hold true to their republican and democratic political beliefs.

Royalist controlled parliaments pass laws and royalist controlled courts enforce laws which deny the people their democratic independence. They get locked up for protesting, defying Queen's officers, Queen's judges court orders, they get harshly and brutally arrested, tortured or killed by the Queen's police.

Again and again foolish people like you confuse the independence of the state to oppress and kill the people at will, according to legislation that the independent state is happy with in a way which utterly destroys the independence of the people and nations concerned.

I object to having the UK monarchy called "British", It is an anti-British monarchy which has done more harm to the British people than anything else, Nazis included because the Nazis were allowed to rise to power partly because of the support and sympathy for their politics held by pro-fascist royalists such as King Edward VIII refusing to act to nip the rise of the Nazis in the bud.

But other European monarchies were as bad - the Belgian monarchy in the Congo for example. The Danish government being so ill-prepared in its own defence in WW2 that it surrendered after 2 hours of being invaded by the Nazi military.

It is disgusting that the appointed president of the European Council is no more than a former lackey of the King of Belgium.

We should never put our trust in anyone who has put any trust in the EU which has spectacularly failed to issue a European arrest warrant for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles.

I blame all those European royalists like Rompuy watering down the republican influence from Europe's republics.

 

Ok then My cousin is married and my sister is inexistent. But have a look around this country. I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for

Sorry it's just that the way this kind of global imperial being works is complicated for me.

Lol I'm not. Same as above.

Hmm I wonder about that... Anyway he won't be there forever and the two main players in the trio are Barroso and Schultz and they surely don't have connections of that kind.

Hehehee you have to be a little patient. All will come at the right time, in the right order.

And I thought republicanism in Europe is stronger then ever .........

 

Finding the nice ladies is not the issue. They don't want to be found by me, is the issue.

States' elites do whatever the hell they like to the people and the monarchy is the excuse the states use to stop the people electing their own president of their own republican state who would take the republican army to war against those state elites who have been abusing the people.

The other way it works is that the monarchy gets promoted on the TV so much is that the mass of brainwashed fools can make jokes at the expense of republicans fighting and suffering for the people's rights, as people are abused, tortured and killed by the kingdom and somehow believe they are correct for doing so because of a sense of mob rule.

The way monarchy will stop working is if we arrest or kill the monarch.

Rompuy was a minister of the Belgian King, therefore he was a lackey of the King.

Well republican connections from Portugal and Germany are better than royalist connections from Belgium, certainly.

I am a lot patriotic and as such I cannot at the same time be a little patient.

No. Queen Elizabeth was welcomed to the Republic of Ireland recently which shows that republics are weakening in their defence of republican principles.

Now, if the Queen had died in a car crash in Ireland, that might be a different matter.

Royalist visits to republics are not what they once were, sadly. In the past, such visits could lead to a republican party atmosphere of celebration and rejoicing.

[video=youtube;OUA2urVQgXY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUA2urVQgXY[/video]

At one time, US Presidents never bothered to meet with the UK monarch. LBJ was the last not to do so.

No, republicans are weaker than ever but we are not beaten yet.

 

Ah come on. Why be that modest? I guess the political work just takes much of your time. Maybe go out more... also go new places, meet new people!

Ok, now I understand.

Soon they'll want to shoot themselves in the head before others reach them, in a bunker maybe ;D

Will be back tomorrow; so late here, have to say Good Night for now.

 

Republicans are banned? Under which law? The Campaign group Republic makes no such accusation. There's simply no significant appetite for the republican view, not even in Scotland.

The Queen has no significant power. They are the "Queen's" judges, officers and courts in name only.

You are entirely free to object to the monarchy in any peaceful way you choose. How could Edward VIII have nipped the rise of the Nazis in the bud? Which other royals are you accusing?

I don't trust the EU or anyone who supports the EU, but on what charge should it have issued a EAW for the Queen or Prince Charles? I don't know if the EU has ever issued an EAW. It's individual member states that issue them.

Your views are passionate and emotional, but is there any substance to them?

 

Your problem surfaces again and again... If countries acted within the laws they have written down ONLY, there would be peace and happiness all round the world.

Your belief in papers...again and again... You tend to believe that text written down on paper is like an active being stretching some all-encompassing justice arms over all reality. You think behavioral reality of important ones and text on paper are the same... just because it's supposed to... be it an official text adopted by a state or not.

Why such blind faith in your authorities? Unofficial laws do not need do be written down to be enforced and with dead accuracy.

 

Me, blind faith in British authorities? Ha, that's a good one.

Fact is, Vlad, republicans are in no way banned from speaking, and the internet (including Youtube) is as open to them as it is to anyone else. However, their views are not popular enough to gain airtime on national or local television or in mass circulation newspapers. Maybe one day they will be, but republicans need to use what's available to them like any campaign group that wants its argument to be taken seriously. What difference does it make to you anyway, either way?

A lack of understanding is not one of my problems.

 

What I last said doesn't zoom the republicans or any group in particular.

What do you mean?

 

I hadn't thought it did.

The UK has a constitutional monarchy. Why does this matter to you as a non-UK citizen?

 

It matters mainly for 2 reasons and maybe more. One is that it matters to me as a European citizen which you too are. The other is it should matter to me more than ever since today we are really going to make one country out of all countries of Europe and I see the UK as the source of all the troubles & hindering that the EU has in its evolution.

A constitutional monarchy sounds like a weird thing to me. Your queen has supreme power in that country to name whichever prime minister she wants, even if from the most obscure and forgotten party if she pleases, in total defiance of for example, a decisive result in the general elections. That doesn't normally happen but she still can... The power is there...open and waiting for any future monarch to abuse it. She does have the power to put whoever she wants in power. That to me pretty much translates into direct authority of the monarchy.

What if one day, in an undefined future, presuming the UK leaves the EU, the monarch puts in power the leader of the National Front?

 

Maybe the Scottish independence movement needs a better high-ball/low-ball strategy. There ought to be a way of putting the English into a position where they demand the realm of Scotland be recognized as an independent nation free and clear as the alternative is too unbearable. I don't presume to know much about it, and as an American it's hardly my concern, but it seems to me that if the Scottish republicans were very adamant about ruling the entire island, that is, advocating that England rightfully be a colony of the Scottish republic, and if that idea gained enough traction, then the response from the English might be one of, "no no, just make Scotland their own country and leave us alone." Well, it's an idea, anyways. I must say though, this is a fascinating topic, reminds me of everything United States is supposed to be.

 

Who is this "we"? We are not making one country; our politicians are (though they ridicule the suggestion that the EU is going to be one country when it comes up here) and they are not doing it in the name of the British people. UK domestic affairs should be, despite what our own politicians think, for UK voters to decide, but your opinions are noted nevertheless. As contemptuous as I am of UK politicians, using the UK as a scapegoat for the EU's problems shows how you have blinded yourself to its fundamental failings.

You vastly overestimate the monarch's power. Even if a monarch did use long dormant powers he (or she) would soon find himself deposed because a monarch only rules by popular consent in a democracy. There are reasons why, for me, a constitutional monarchy beats a republic but I see no need to justify my support for it to you.

I find it curious that you are concerned about the theoretical power the UK monarch has over the UK but appear blithely unconcerned about the even greater power the EU has over Europe and the EU doesn't have the safeguard of a democracy underpinning it.

 

Most countries in Europe. And as far as the people of Europe are concerned, they are generally pro-European and passive pro-Federalism. They wouldn't militate for it but wouldn't oppose it either because most feel that's the way to go. You translate their silence into euroskepticism (not talking about the UK here).

I say it again... The EU is not a state (not yet) so the word democracy can't apply to it... What's your concern? Since it has no governing power, its overall power is close to null. It's the legislative power it has that you worry about but that is still enforced by the local governments. It's more like a club of governments that have decided to follow the same ways rather than a bunch of servants as you suspect. The Commission is a mere referee on the football pitch. It has the power to penalize the players since they accepted to play that match but still the players themselves are the master players and decide whether that match is a well played match, a good match. Problems in the EU often come from the gaps in the team spirit of those players (the govts) and people blame the referee for the lost matches!!

I could also say I find it curious that you worry about EU theoretical power. The EU is not even a state as I so many times said it to you. In turn your UK is more than a state. It's a kingdom. A political entity with ancestral, traditional powers that are seen as close to sacred & absolute, undeniable. I find that scary. The queen tradition is supposed to be unquestionable... Sounds like you are awaiting a crazy abusive monarch to close this tradition very low on the scale of honor.

I'm sure you admit that nothing lasts forever. Your monarchy has lasted a thousand years. Even Hitler said about his Third Reich it's to last that long... but didn't say 10000 years. If you expect the monarchy to last like this you only increase the chances of it ending in a bad image, a low end, an inglorious one (something has to happen at some point... be it an abuse, a crime, a big scandal, but something will). Come on accept that the clock for the next era is ringing. If you do it now, and integrate into Europe with all others at once, it will be seen as a noble sign of sacrifice, participation, involvement. Just because it is a thing this precious to you will show how strong you are, in being capable of making that decision for the fist time in one thousand years. If not, it will only accentuate your frustration & disbelief when having to give up the monarchy. And it will not be nice.

Besides, most Europe which is pro-European will regard you as mindless, unreasonable traditionalists. Changes are good after a long period of something, even if you believe that thing still works and will continue to work well for you.

Why worry about the EU? The EU is not naming the prime ministers of its countries... And the fact that you vote for a party and not for a person is really a gap in your democracy. Anyway, speaking of democracy, I also find it curious that you didn't say anything on this video. You once said that the EU Parliament should be able to dissolve the Commission like any self-respecting Parliament does. I posted this as a new thread a long time ago yet you didn't say anything:

[video=youtube;oLVTUSLSqxs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=oLVTUSLSqxs[/video]

 

I don't translate anyone's silence as euroscepticism. The fact remains the people of Europe are not making one country, their politicians, including the UK's, are. Do you translate Europeans lack of opposition into acquiesence? And the ever falling participation in elections to the European Parliament in the same way?

Please clarify, and I have asked you before: What is your source(s) of information regarding the EU? Perhaps you could ask where the European Courts of Justice fits in with this fantasy you imagine? How a country may disregard one of the European Commission's hundreds of thousands of diktats? What "qualified majority voting means"? But don't ask Martin Schulz. For an MEP of nearly 20 years standing (and imagine how well he's done out of the EU. Not surprising he supports it, is it?) and now president of the EP, he is depressingly unwilling to come clean about the extent of EU power. He seems to think we're all fools incapable of thinking for ourselves.

The monarchy has never been unquestionable. It is questioned as a matter of course as it should be. We don't "have" to give up the monarchy, but one day we may choose to (and without any daft advice from you, thanks.)

We're all "pro-European". It would be stupid to be anything else since it's the continent on which we live. Of course changes are good if they are the right kind of changes. I can't see how the EU is a "good" change, so if "most of Europe" thinks I am a "mindless, unreasonable`traditionalist" I can live with it just fine. Following the europhile quest for a single country would be completely moronic feeling as I do.

As for submitting to it being a "noble sacrifice" you make me f****** laugh.

I don't think I've seen video you posted before. If I did not comment in the relevant thread, I wouldn't have done, but please post a link to the thread, I'd like to read it. (Contrary to what your fertile imagination might tell you, I don't follow your every utterance unless I can spare the time.)

And Martin Schulz is one of my favourite europhiles. Maybe you should ask him the answers to those questions above? Do ask him also about the many "competences" the EU already has covering almost all areas of policy. As president of the EP, supposedly the "people's voice", he really should know.

 

You know what's wrong about northern nationalists like you? ...that your pride is higher than your IQ. This deficit is set to backfire on your financially troubled low social class ass. Some years will pass. Don't say in some years that I didn't warn you.

 

A poor answering argument, but never mind. When there's some indication that you know what you're talking about, your "warnings" might be worth listening to.

 

Thank you Peter for making me laugh so much I nearly peed myself. I thought at first that you were a comedian with your hilarious 'republican socialist' uniform that ends up looking like a Bus Conductor at a National Heritage park but then I realised you are real and seriously believe, passionately believe' in your quest.

This would make a hilarious sit com.

 

I think that most people in the EU would just like to get on with their lives and would rather have some sort of coherent region wide government so they could live by the same rules wherever in the EU they went. At the same time many would like more say in local matters. This may seem contradictory but it is not. National governments, while ceding a lot of power and authority to the EU have at the same time consolidated national power and authority leaving the people with little power in local governance. It is the nature of bureaucracy, stifled in upward growth by EU prerogatives national governments adopted downward bureaucratic growth , usurping and replacing local political power with state bureaucracy wherever they could. This has left the populace somewhat peeved.

The nationalists blame it all on the EU but they are completely wrong because it is the natural bureaucratic sprawl of national government that has been the prime factor in reducing local control. In reality many EU nations would be far better off if they got rid of their republican national governments and adopted a more loose federal arrangement through which the various regions would be far better positioned to pursue their local interests while remaining within the greater structure.

I think that Scotland would be better off as an independent member of the EU than continuing its association with a UK increasingly under the spell of the City bankers, who are hell bent on continuing their reckless ways and are willing to break the EU and take the whole world economy down to get their way. The people of Scotland would be well served by not being part of that bailout, which will come rather sooner than later if the UK continues to buck the entire rest of the EU on banking rules.

 

From the mass media, most of us, most of the time, at our most politically aggressive yes.

I don't say it is a complete ban. I was on BBC2 Scotland for 10 minutes in December 2008.

Some media professionals may be closet republicans but have to act like royalists or very diplomatically anyway to avoid being removed from their jobs.

Any law. No law. The law in a kingdom is irrelevant because the kingdom does whatever they hell they want anyway.

I think the kingdom and its courts can bend each and every law to ban a republican when they want, don't you? After all, the kingdom appoints the judges and the police so the "law" in a kingdom is simply a fig-leaf for a royalist dictatorship anyway.

I mean it's not as if the kingdom ever restrict themselves to banning only republicans. They can ban anyone, anyone they don't want on TV, doesn't get on. Full stop. Period. End of story.

I don't see what the issue with the "law" is. I mean if you are an innocent person, who witnesses a crime, and gives a statement to the police, but you then refuse to attend their courts as a witness when cited, and a warrant is issued for your arrest, and you resist arrest, and you defend yourself against the police, the police can kill you. And it is all according to their "law".

So if the "law" in a kingdom says they can kill you, anyone, for simply not obeying them to attend their Queen's courts and resisting arrest, why on earth would anyone be in the least surprised that the law can be used to ban republicans from TV?

To understand, the citizen in a kingdom is simply dead-meat walking as far as the kingdom and its officers are concerned. You bow down to their authority or you are dead.

Now, a republican in such a circumstance, oppressed and enslaved by a kingdom, is at war, maybe a cold war, if no actual republican army is available to support or to join, to bomb the kingdom to hell where it belongs, but in a war, you can't expect the enemy to allow its broadcasting facilities to be used to seek support for the war to overthrow the kingdom.

It is simply naive to believe that republicans would not be banned from state TV 99.9% of the time.

Well no doubt they get their 15 minutes of fame as well.

It's a small appetite given that republicans are mostly banned.

Look, if it was anything like 50 - 50 coverage of royalists and republicans on TV then TV news reports by republicans would be blaming the kingdom for each and every murder which happens in the kingdom, like this.

[video=youtube;KG2Xxl3UVcY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG2Xxl3UVcY[/video]

So the appetite would follow the balance of coverage and 50% of the people would be wanting to chop the Queen's head off for allowing murders of innocents in the streets.

Those judges, officers and courts have all the power and the people have no power because the Queen is occupying the position of head of state, preventing a republican president from leading the republican army to war against said judges, officers and courts who very much need the Queen in post to save their own necks.

I choose to feature on broadcast TV each day for 1 hour explaining why the royal family must be banned from the country today or targeted for immediate assassination by any military loyal to the people. Or if I am not available I choose to have my YouTube videos broadcast on TV for 1 hour each day in my place.

I choose that and it would be peaceful but I am not free to do it because I am banned from TV, as is anyone else with a republican political viewpoint to broadcast.

Oh I blame Edward VIII and his appeaser PMs like Baldwin, MacDonald, Chamberlain etc. The UK and its allies could and should have been armed and deployed to invade Germany in to crush the Nazis in the bud at the very latest in 1933 when Germany made Hitler Chancellor but ideally well before then.

Oh charges against the Queen could be

• murder for all those people her officers have murdered but never gone to jail for.
• false imprisonment for all those people her courts and jails locked up but who were innocent people, according to a democratic republican constitution anyway.

There are certain European laws and principles such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights where the UK has violated every principle.

There's plenty of democratic and republican reasons for issuing an arrest warrant for the Queen but no political will to do so because the EU is fatally compromised by its accommodation with the kingdoms of Europe instead of taking a firm path to overthrowing them in favour of republican democratic government of, by and for the people.

 

OK, before 1936, those were King George V's PMs, who was Edward's father, but the principle is the same. A good republican president would have led the country to war against the Nazis far earlier and would never have allowed appeaser PMs to stay in office.

Well I say "necks" but republicans are reasonable people so if losing their jobs gets these royalist judges, officers etc out of harms way then maybe they can keep their heads if not their jobs.

 

If there's a word for English law that is ambiguity. Many of their laws and legal procedures are so ambiguously formulated that with them they can pretty much twist anything in whatever direction they like. After a year as a student there, I found it a relief to leave that place.

Tendencies of Far Right or Far Left or whatever you want but far do exist there. The fanatic mysticism surrounding the monarchy demands resorting to anything.

As an Eastern European who lived & studied there and who knows what dictatorship is like I can confirm that in many areas that country is not a democracy. When the police and not just the police but any loser behind a desk in a bit of position of power talks to you you have a terrible feeling... with the police i. e. one that, if you are arrested, you may not be heard from again. Of course I'm sure most of the time that wouldn't be the case but that's the feeling I get.

With poor frames of reference, if any, the nationalistic people there genuinely believe they live in total democracy. Yet it is interesting that for an outdoors party they surrounded the area with fences... they put fences around the partying area as if the students were animals and many of them where really feeling it's for their safety. Bizarre. Furthermore, the security confiscated the beer from my hand and then searched me and my backpack and confiscated other beers, unopened ones even though I asked to be allowed to leave. They said they will confiscate them even if I leave. Reason: Only brands from the venue are allowed to be on you. But there was no sign anywhere warning the students of that. And what 'venue'... These were university grounds, between our residence blocks and I just walked into the place I normally go by every day.