18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundAnd I didn't claim to.
You cant speak for the Scottish either, just your own opinion, and your party line if you wish, but you do not speak for me.
Like i said in my reply to the original post, i am quite proud of our queen. In a commonwealth, there is no reason that Independence should change that.
There are different views on what will happen after independance. No big deal. Lets get there first.
18 Sep 06
as an activist within the snp, i can confirm that the policy is to organise a referendum on the issue of the monarchy in the first term of an independent scottish government.
i remember the conference well, rothesay 1997 - it was my first.
my own opinion is that in this referendum i will be voting for a republic as to me the monarchy epitomises the british class system. it is also an institution that is anti - roman catholic.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by AmauroteAs i said, my opinion is only a personal one and it was not intended to be based on any sound argument. i only see the pomp and ceremony on tv (lucky i have the mute button Bosse de Nage). Other than that i have an interest in the monarchy and its role in history in general and legal history. The fact that the UK still has this tradition alive today is what i like 🙂
But what makes you believe tradition, ceremony and history aren't equally viable in a republic? You can change the guard at Buckingham Palace for all eternity - you don't necessarily require a bedizened queen to be sitting inside it.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeA couple of things about the situation in Australia in 1975 need developing here:
[/i]
I have given a concrete example where this theoretical power of the monarch had a significant influence in UK politics. Someone else has given an example where the queen's representative actually usurped the democratic wishes of the people of Australia.
This is more than symbolic.
There is a world of difference between swearing an oath of all ...[text shortened]... o a person who's power is based on some kind of heriditary favour from their imaginary friend.[/b]
1. The Fraser government was elected by a majority of Australians only a few weeks after the Whitlam government had been dismissed, so I wouldn't call the dismissal going against the democratic wishes of the people.
Don't need to get into the details here, but the Whitlam government was starting to get on the nose of the people so to speak, and I think people were keen for a change - it just happened a little earlier than expected.
2. The GG can't just decide to sack a government.
He can only do this after a particular series of events takes place - which they did in 1975.
3. The GG is appointed by the Prime Minister. And he can be sacked by the Prime Minister too. (The Queen signs off on the appointment, but this is absolutely ceremonial.) Whitlam could have sacked the GG Kerr before he was dismissed, but chose not to.
Could this all happen again today?
Theoretically, yes.
Practically speaking, no way. GGs since Kerr have been appointed deliberately for their meekness. PRime Ministers and their advisors are too savvy today to wait quietly for a GG to sack them.
19 Sep 06
Originally posted by PhilodorYou're painting a political ideology with the reality of the way it's been implemented.
What a joke you are. A democratic communist? Surely a contradiction in terms.
Lenin,Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et al were all communists like you and were no more interested in democracy than was Hitler.
One is not the same as the other.
Coimmunism is no less inherently democratic than capitalism.
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by chris stephensThat's not an argument against a Scottish monarchy though.
my own opinion is that in this referendum i will be voting for a republic as to me the monarchy epitomises the british class system. it is also an institution that is anti - roman catholic.
You just don't want to keep the Bristish one (which is fair enough).
20 Sep 06
Originally posted by aging blitzerThere is no public support of any level at all for a restoration of a Scottish monarchy.
That's not an argument against a Scottish monarchy though.
You just don't want to keep the Bristish one (which is fair enough).
There is no individual being touted as an heir (though I think there is some dubious guy in Belgium who claims it). I've never met anyone who is remotely interested.
We currently have a monarch. We are currently seeking independence. There is some debate about what an independent Scotland will look like, and part of this is whether we maintain some kind of link with the British monarch. The general view is, as Chris S has said, is that we'll sort out the independence, and deal with the other issues when we get there.
Some people clearly want to retain the monarchy, others don't (I certainly don't). This is reflected in the fact that there are now 4 political parties, and a range of independents, in favour of independence for Scotland.