Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Brown pledges to reform UK succession to the throne

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 March 2009
Gordon Brown today insisted he was determined to remove "discrimination" after it emerged the Government had opened talks with Buckingham Palace over laws preventing heirs to the throne from marrying Roman Catholics.
The Prime Minister stressed there were no "easy answers" to changing the 1701 Act of Settlement.

But, in a round of broadcast interviews during his pre-G20 travels, he indicated he would be raising the issue with other Commonwealth leaders when th
ey gather in November.

"This is a very complex issue that has been a matter of controversy and discussion for decades, indeed over centuries," Mr Brown said.

"What we must do is protect the position of the monarchy and the position of the Queen as head of the established church, the Church of England.

"But there are clear issues about the exclusion of people from the rights of succession, and there are clearly issues that have got to be dealt with not just in Britain but right across the Commonwealth.

"This is not an easy set of answers, but I think in the 21st century people do expect discrimination to be removed and they do expect us to be looking at these issues."

Ministers have already signalled a willingness to address the issue, which will be raised in the Commons today when MPs debate legislation introduced by a Liberal Democrat MP to end the "uniquely discriminatory" rules.

Evan Harris has cross-party support for his proposals but looks unlikely to win ministerial support at this stage as the Government grapples with what it said would be a "complex undertaking".

The Act states that heirs to the throne lose their right to be the sovereign if they marry a Catholic or convert – forcing royal brides over the years to leave the faith to protect their husband's birthright.
Autumn Kelly, the wife of Peter Phillips, the Queen's grandson, did just this before their wedding last year so that he remained 11th in line to the throne.

His claim could be made stronger still if action to end the practice of male heirs taking precedence was made retrospective as his mother, the Princess Royal, would leapfrog her two younger brothers.

She would become fourth in line, behind Prince Harry, instead of coming after the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex and their children.

Dr Harris's Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill is co-sponsored by Catholic parliamentarians such as Tory MP Edward Leigh, Labour's Andrew Mackinlay and John Grogan and fellow Liberal Democrat John Pugh.

He said: "This Bill will remove the uniquely discriminatory rule which currently exists – that an individual in the line of succession to the throne can have a civil partnership with a Catholic, can marry a Muslim or atheist, but cannot marry a Catholic.

"It will also end the outdated rule which allows a woman in the line of succession to the throne to be automatically superseded by a younger male sibling.

"If our current monarch had a younger brother, we would never have had a Queen Elizabeth II."

Asked if it would back the backbench legislation, a Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: "The Government has always stood firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including against Roman Catholics, and we will continue to do so.

"To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth.

"We are examining this complex area although there are no immediate plans to legislate."

A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "This is a complex issue. While there is no question of changing the constitutional role of the Monarch or of changing the role of the Church of England as the established church, people expect the Government to look at issues of discrimination.

"The laws concerning marriage to Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal family should change, but that can only happen with the agreement of the Palace and of all the Commonwealth countries of which HM The Queen is the head of state.

"We are keen to open a process of dialogue with them which can lead to changes in this legislation, but that cannot happen overnight, which is why we cannot support this Private Members Bill."

Dr Harris welcomed the findings of an opinion poll which found overwhelming public support for removing the discrimination against Catholics and female royals.

The survey, by ICM for the BBC, showed 89% of voters backed giving female heirs equal succession rights and 81% believed heirs who married Catholics should still be able to take to the throne.

Despite continued support for the monarchy by more than three quarters of the public for the monarchy, almost one in five (18%) said they would prefer to see Britain become a republic when the present Queen dies.

The Lib Dem MP said: "Very few political ideas, let alone constitutional changes, have two-thirds support yet ending discrimination against Catholics in royal marriages and against women in the succession both have over 80% support.

"Even more people believe that the monarchy should be fair than believe that there should be a monarchy at all so the Government and the Conservative Party should support this bill and end these historic injustices as soon as possible."

ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults across the country by telephone between March 20-22 and the results were weighted to reflect the population.




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 March 2009 10:09 AM
  • Source: scotsman.com
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: The Monarchy
 
1

snoozyowl,

27/03/2009 10:17:59
Notwithstanding the charm of the present incumbent, the whole monarchy thing may be reaching its sell-by date. I can't really see how it is compatible with the UK's modern left-wing socialist state, and perhaps a gradual transition towards a republic would be the way to go. It gets around all the stuff about establishment of churches, discrimination against women and minorities and so on. It also elminates the strange and illogical reliance on ancient historical lineage to determine our head of state. It would not be cheap, though, Presidents always come with a very big bill. In any case, one day we will have to join the EU (properly I mean). Monarchies are a minority taste there, and would conflict with the future federal structure.
2

fiferjohn,

27/03/2009 10:23:13
get rid of them and save all the money that is spent on them.
turn the palaces into much needed flats .
no more groveling to people that think they a better than us.
subject to no man or woman .
3

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 10:27:16
Why not just abolish the monarchy and allow any citizen of the nation, irrespective of colour, creed, religion or place of origin to stand as President?

Let the people decide who should be head of state.
4

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 27/03/2009 10:43:17
As a Catholic, I have to say that we should keep the monarchy. They are fantastic ambassadors of all the home nations and the Queen grafts, that's for sure.

Yeah, they cost a lot but I'm wondering if they bring or create more economy that the cost of keeping them.

Anybody know? Incidentally, would the CommonWealth still exist without them?
5

Tris,

27/03/2009 10:59:02
Well now... and Mr Brown told us he was devoting every hour from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to bed thinking about the economy and how to save the world, and we find he's been telling porkies.

He's been working on the most pressing of problems; the one which doubtless is at the top of most people's worry list. Whether Princess Anne should come before Prince Andrew in the list for the top job.

Of course royalty shouldn't be excluded from the sex and religious equality laws that the rest of us have to live with (although if you are going to be supreme governor of the Church of England it's probably necessary to be an adherent), but really, in the great scheme of unemployment and depression that's going on in this country, who gives a sh!t about how this outdated organisation conducts itself.

#4 Dave, to the best of my knowledge, the head of the Commonwealth is, for the moment, the Queen, but the title does not necessarily, as of right, belong to the British monarch. It ceased to be the British Commonwealth some time ago, and there are only 15 countries in it where Elizabeth is head of state. Apparently she has the job for life, but it could be you or me when she dies. (Or we could do it jointly if you like.) Seriously, it may be that Charlie will get the job, but seems more likely that it will go to another head of state on a short term basis.
6

bluehead,

edinburgh 27/03/2009 11:06:32
don't tell me this clown wants to called king Gordon ?
it would not surprise me for a moment,perhaps court jester would be more appropriate,he always looks like
a clown,there seems to be no end to his nuttiness
7

57vintage,

The People's Republic of Keith 27/03/2009 11:22:06
#4 Dave

"Yeah, they cost a lot but I'm wondering if they bring or create more economy that the cost of keeping them"

The usual argument is that they generate loads of cash for the tourist industry. How quantifiable this is, I'm not sure, but I know that France, as a republic, doesn't suffer from tourists deciding not to visit Versailles because Louis the Umpteenth no longer lives there.

Abolish the lot and the tawdry privilege (eg the "Honours" List) that goes with them. No modern democracy needs such costly, racist, out of touch figureheads.
8

Cpt Incredible,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 11:22:29
He may be head of the War Criminals and Snouts in the trough and Sleaze Party,but he's correct on this occasion.
It would be far better to abolish them altogether,but at least this will annoy the mentally challenged Ibrox types,like No.6.
9

Joanna,

Cambs, England 27/03/2009 11:22:43
Glad to see Mr Brown has enough time on his hands to worry about some of the wealthiest people in the world being discriminated against. A latter day Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

10

AJ Fife,

27/03/2009 11:43:24
Does this mean the UK will ditch the current, 'very iffy', German strain and seek out the proper Royal family?

There must be a Stuart/Stewart somewhere who fits the bill.
11

BMeister,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 11:50:50
Surely we never have had an Elizabeth II?
12

Eve,

Scotland 27/03/2009 11:53:05
#4 Dave From Barra: Who knows, maybe it brings tourism to London. But I very much dought it brings anything to Scotland.

I know that sometimes their is a sence of acsetiment in a handful of people when they go somewhere to open it. But really I think most people don't care who opens buildings such as new wing in hospiatals. Cause the most important thing is how good the people who work there are good at their jobs. i.e. have exselent doctors, nurces and life saving equipement that works really well.

"Incidentally, would the CommonWealth still exist without them?"

Personaly I would question if the CommonWealth acaul stood for something, other than a few events held every so often.
13

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 11:58:25
This is Comrade Broon trying to get the catholic vote and women's votes in the run up to the election he'll call in the summer before the depression gets really depressing.

Utter buffoon.
14

St.George,

27/03/2009 12:03:03
For all you uneducated trolls the monarchy brings in 1.5 billion pounds a year to the UK treasury,mainly from the yanks and the chinese.
15

St.George,

27/03/2009 12:05:54
13.Jimmy, stop talking out of your backside,this is the 21st century all Brown is saying is lets move with the times.
16

St.George,

27/03/2009 12:08:14
If Dianna had been alive it would of been a whole lot more!
17

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 12:14:52
George,

Comrade Broon does nothing without a reason.

World economies in recession, the UK is a depression and New Labour Sleaze heading for utter humiliation.

Keep the focus away from reality and get down to the serious matters!!!!

I'm not against the Royal Family, I am against New Labour Sleaze!!
18

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 12:16:00
Should have read,

World economies in recession, the UK is IN a depression and New Labour Sleaze heading for utter humiliation.
19

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 12:17:36
Did any one see Comrade Broon humiliating himself with the Brazilian President???

Utterly pathetic.
20

St.George,

27/03/2009 12:20:30
17.Jimmy,how about salmond sleaze! All new labour are trying to do is make the monarchy more democratic.
21

St.George,

27/03/2009 12:23:02
19.Not as pathetic as you my friend,you really have an axe to grind, did they stop your benefit!
22

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 12:44:23
george

What sleaze would Alex Salmond be involved in???

Despite the Sleaze Party's best efforts they have been unable to find anything!!

In complete contrast to their own behaviour,
Tony McNulty, Mandelson, Harriet Harriden, Lord Watson, Lard Foolkes, Prescott, Hain, Red Wendy, David Marshall, John McVicar,

Want me to go on????
23

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 12:45:36
george

Oh and I pay a lot of tax to what I class as a foreign government!!
24

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 12:49:56
A J Fife (10): "Does this mean the UK will ditch the current, 'very iffy', German strain and seek out the proper Royal family?

There must be a Stuart/Stewart somewhere who fits the bill."

George I was the great-grandson of James VI/I, via his daughter Elizabeth of Bohemia, the so-called Winter Queen. In other words, they are Stuarts who fit the bill!
25

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 12:52:39
I just saw ex jailbird Lord Archer banging on about the Royal family on Sky News. Seemingly it is the English Royal family now!

Maybe he has second sight???
26

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 12:52:50
Why doesn't Gordon Brown remove discrimination from his government and appoint a Minister for Men to mirror the one for Women.
27

Number 6,

Germany. 27/03/2009 12:56:29
14 Georgie boy "For all you uneducated trolls the monarchy brings in 1.5 billion pounds a year to the UK treasury,mainly from the yanks and the chinese."

What on earth are you gibbering about?

Where did you pluck that figure from ?

I had no idea she had gone into the Bed and breakfast business.

Are you seriously suggesting people fly half way around the world to stand outside Buck palace, in the vain hope of seeing a royal curtain twitch?.

You actually believe that tourists would stop visiting London if Buck palace was unoccupied, dont you?.

As far as this story goes, the Scotsman is weeks behind the rest of the media on this one( I wonder why). I have mentioned this current Labour policy on quite a few ocassions.

It's the logical consequence of political correctness.

Won't even register in South Britain, but you can imagine the reaction in certain parts of Scotland and North Ireland.


28

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 12:56:35
#25. Jimmy.

Are you surprised by the jailbird's comments? He is just mirroring what the vast majority of people in England say anyway. We all know that the whole of the British Isles is called England. Keeps the Unionists happy and them Jocks in their place.
29

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 27/03/2009 12:57:16
ooooh Gordon everybody and their granny is giving you a slap down over the economy. However we know you are the financial guru of the world, er,er lets change the subject, monarchy that'l do. Labour spin doctors all over this subject. i think they are getting worried about his diminishing mental state.

I think the 300 year old subject of the Treaty of Union will be coming to the fore soon rather than the English/ German Monarchy which was also foisted on Scotland, nothing new there
30

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 12:57:33
The Labour party are on the backfoot in Scotland and people are strating to unite against the establishment.

Suddenly they decide to open up the debate about Catholics in the Monarchy.

divide and conquer


I imagine the west coast will be frothing at the mouth at the proposals
31

AJ Fife,

27/03/2009 13:01:26
Mr Fairfax,

Wasn't George I the 35th in line?

Wasn't it an appointment based on his religion?
32

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 13:05:32
Jimmy Le Pie (25): "Seemingly it is the English Royal family now!"

As I posted above, they are essentially Stuarts, being descendants of James VI/I. As such, they return to Scotland on independence, together with several other generous Scottish gifts to England: Gordon Brown, Alister Darling (naturalised Scot, I know, but you can have him too), the debts of RBS and the BoS component. Obviously we will be demanding reparations for the Darien refinancing, Charles I, James II, Gordon Brown, Kirsty Wark and Neil Oliver, but those can wait . . .
33

The Master,

27/03/2009 13:07:02
This is vital modernisation for the monarchy. To all those who argue that they are not value for money, may I point out that each monarch has given up to the Crown the revenues from the Crown Estate in exchange for the civil list payments: it's a deal which benefits the taxpayer far more than it does the monarchy.
34

Cpt Incredible,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 13:14:44
St George quotes.
"For all you uneducated trolls
"If Dianna had been alive it would of been a whole lot more"

Before you call anybody else uneducated,try and get your grammar correct.
Uneducated moron.

35

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 13:17:03
AJ (31): "Wasn't George I the 35th in line?"

It depends on your definition. After all, William II/III had been a great-grandson of James VI/I, just like George, and had been accepted as king of England and of Scots. Once England's Parliament recognized his mother Sophia (grand-daughter of James VI/I) as heir, he became heir-apparent. In 1703, the Scottish Parliament refused to recognize Sophia unless Scots were given freedom to trade in England and the English Empire, so he didn't become heir apparent in Scotland until 1704.

"Wasn't it an appointment based on his religion?"

It certainly played an important part.
36

Brian Hill,

27/03/2009 13:18:23
Talking about Kings and Queens and things, how much of a cut in their budget will we see during these increasingly hard times?

Just wondering?
37

St.George,

27/03/2009 13:24:29
22.
SNP 'smells of sleaze' for backing Trump's golf course development

By Andy McSmith. need I say more!
38

Astonished,

Inverclyde 27/03/2009 13:25:14
Sorry Gordon and the labour lie machine - THIS WONT DISTRACT ME FROM YOUR UTTER INCOMPETENCE.


Why dont you dress up as martians planning to invade then Gordon can again "save the world" ?
39

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 27/03/2009 13:25:33
32 Fairfax
I think you will discover that the Scottish Parliament DID NOT accept the Royal Succession in the 17th Century and that King charles was executed against scottish wishes. England did not like the fact that any scottish Monarch, well,had to be authorised by Scotland.

I think Scotland is also sick of bankrolling the UK Treasury, ye M24, channel tunnel, hope you appreciate them as they were constructed with Scottish money
40

,

27/03/2009 13:27:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

27/03/2009 13:28:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

St.George,

27/03/2009 13:31:13
34. It's a poxy newspaper thread,not a english grammer exam! maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee pal and stop trying to score points!
43

AJ Fife,

27/03/2009 13:31:14
Mr Fairfax,

Religion played the biggest part as well you know. Perhaps we should just go right back to James VII as a starting point, and see who or what turns up! Maybe we could end up with the Star Trek fella - Patrick the First has a nice ring to it!

However, your name suggests you don't have much enthusiasm for Royals and Popery?
44

,

27/03/2009 13:35:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

St.George,

27/03/2009 13:36:34
39.What the hell are you on mate! England would be one of the richest countries in the world if it was not for scotland and N.I. Between you you take 61 billion pounds from the english tax payers.
46

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 13:36:46
Westfield Bairns (29): "I think you will discover that the Scottish Parliament DID NOT accept the Royal Succession in the 17th Century and that King charles was executed against scottish wishes."

That's certainly correct, and led to the later stages of the Civil Wars, in which Cromwell utterly defeated the Covenanters at Dunbar and Worcester, in the early 1650s. After that, Cromwell abolished Scotland and its Parliament, forming the Commonwealth of England. Scotland returned to existence in 1660, obviously, as part of the Restoration Settlement.

"I think Scotland is also sick of bankrolling the UK Treasury, ye M24, channel tunnel, hope you appreciate them as they were constructed with Scottish money"

I think you mean the M25 -- to my knowledge there is no M24.
It's also important to understand that, although oil was important in the dire days of the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was economically irrelevant to England from the mid-1980s onwards. The total income from oil is roughly 1% of English GDP, and is mostly returned to Scotland via increased public sector spending in any case. Still, don't let my argument persuade you: please vote SNP and secede as soon as possible.
47

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 13:42:02
AJ (43): "Religion played the biggest part as well you know. Perhaps we should just go right back to James VII as a starting point, and see who or what turns up! Maybe we could end up with the Star Trek fella - Patrick the First has a nice ring to it!"

If we're going to have a monarch, I'm very happy to support Patrick Stewart. Alternatively, why not the actress Rachel Stirling? She's arguably descended from Charles II, if Archie Stirling's family is to be believed, and is much prettier than Patrick.

"However, your name suggests you don't have much enthusiasm for Royals and Popery?"

That's certainly true -- I would prefer a secular republic. Still, our monarchy is not really a major problem, in my view. It is our Parliament, and its inability to check the power of Government, which is our primary problem.
48

,

27/03/2009 13:43:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

St.George,

27/03/2009 13:46:56

The British Government currently spends £1,503 more per head on Scottish citizens than it spends on English citizens. This is why Scottish cancer patients are given life-saving drugs which are denied to English patients. It is why English university students must pay their tuition fees while Scottish students get their education free (even if they are studying at an English university). It is why the elderly in England must sell their homes to pay for nursing home care while the elderly in Scotland get free nursing home care. It is why there are free eye tests and free prescriptions for far more patients in Scotland than in England.

Scotland has a population of around 5 million. Of these only 163,000 are net taxpayers. In other words, of the 5 million Scots, an astonishing 4,837,000 are kept by English taxpayers.

An English Parliament could, and almost certainly would, vote to leave the European Union. England would once again be a strong and independent nation. Without the votes of Scottish MPs who support Britain's membership of the EU (and who prevent our leaving) the English would be free of European red tape and richer by several billion pounds a year.

Without Scotland and the EU to support the English would be much better off. England could have much better schools and hospitals. And lower taxes.
50

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 27/03/2009 13:48:04
40 ribbonman

Xmas, why? I'm not devout, if that's what you are implying, I'm Catholic by birth and heritage.

Yourself?
51

AJ Fife,

27/03/2009 13:50:36
Mr Fairfax#47,

A secular Scottish republic is a very nice thought, but on the otherhand, having a Royal Family to laugh at certainly lifts the gloom. I mean, look at Charlie Big Lugs and his auld man, Phil the Greek? Where would we be if it wasn't for those two brammers?

52

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 27/03/2009 13:51:05
St.George,27/03/2009 13:36:34

"39.What the hell are you on mate! England would be one of the richest countries"

The 1974 McCrone report commissioned by the british government says differently.

St. George is the patron saint of England, skin diseases and syphilis.

53

,

27/03/2009 13:51:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 27/03/2009 13:52:25
46 fairfax
Just a couple of points to note, Cromwell, well, you can't abolish Scotland
However most importantly the sovereignty of scotland lies with the people in a written Constitution ( Declaration of Arbroath) and the unwritten Constitution. English Kings had the divine right to rule as opposed to the Kings/queens of Scots who were Monarchs of the people but not the Country as this belongs to the people
This in effect makes the Treaty of Union null and void as basicaly the Scottish parliament had no right to give away the peoples sovereignty
55

Baillie Guthrie,

27/03/2009 13:53:15
Brown is the expert in 'discrimination. Those who agree with him and those who don't.

Lucky he likes the Monarchy even if he has turned Great (he he) Britain into a banana monarchy.

Guillotine Brown and all those who agree with him. That would probably come to one guillotining.

Never mind I will be there,at Bannockburn I suggest, with my knitting to see the spectacle. Even with his head off he will be swaggering and sniggering. A headless cockatoo in a long dark blue overcoat staggering around the field.

Blissful dreams.

56

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 27/03/2009 13:53:25
53 Ribbonman

Not wanting to get into the whole conversation thing, I don't have the best relationship with my religion at present.

Cool with you?
57

St.George,

27/03/2009 13:54:03
52. You ain't even in the UK so butt out!
58

,

27/03/2009 13:56:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

,

27/03/2009 13:57:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

Jo'Burg Jock,

27/03/2009 13:58:13
St.George,27/03/2009 13:54:03
52. You ain't even in the UK so butt out!

I will be returning soon and you will be correct because Scotland will not be in the "UK".

Scotland will be independent

61

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 13:58:54
Look! Brown is once again trying to move publicity away fro m himself and this fraudulent government.
The royal family do no harm whatsover, they are there as figureheads and as such contribute enormously to this country.
If you believe economically we would be better off with a president and the inevitable entourage ..think again..Presidents..Blair Brown Prescott Manelson et al
can you imagine the expense forms and freebies flying around
62

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 27/03/2009 14:03:30
57 St george
Scotland would be a nice little rich country if it wasn't for all our money subsidising your bloated and now getting overpopulated Country.
However you should check your facts before posting and try getting a back bone and get your own parliament
63

,

27/03/2009 14:09:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 14:11:33
Jo'Burg Jock #60
Welcome back to Scotland ..Did they kick you out for whinging? St George is absolutely right all we want in England is our own Parliament to decide what we want to do in health, education etc etc.at the moment and hopefullyfor only a little while longer decisions are made at Westminster by people elected in Scotland and committed to the promotion of things Scottish at the expense of other nations(particularlyEngland).
I see know reason why Both You and us cannot be successful but it is curious that G.Brown will not give the English a referendum that matches those given to Scotlab Wales and N Ireland.We are aproud nation and have no fear about governing ourselves with the royal family as our head
65

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 14:13:20
Sorry in final paragraph that should read Scotland..my bad typing!!
66

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 14:13:57
#49 George and Mildred.

"Scotland has a population of around 5 million. Of these only 163,000 are net taxpayers. In other words, of the 5 million Scots, an astonishing 4,837,000 are kept by English taxpayers.

You are an absolute buffoon mate. 163,000 are net taxpayers? Quite disgraceful for you to put such utter p*sh on this site in order to stir up hatred. There are far more than 163,000 taxpayers, and you know it. If you aim to stir up the usual anti-Scottish tripe get your facts right. Clown.
67

St.George,

27/03/2009 14:14:49
62. Please read my post @49. AND DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH!
68

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 14:15:48
Westfield Bairn (54): "However most importantly the sovereignty of scotland lies with the people in a written Constitution ( Declaration of Arbroath) and the unwritten Constitution."

The sovereignty of any nation lies ultimately in its ability to defend itself from foreign conquest. Scotland failed this test at Dunbar and Worcester.

"English Kings had the divine right to rule"

They did indeed claim this, but the reality of losing the Civil War intervened. From that point on, Parliament held ultimate power in England.

"as opposed to the Kings/queens of Scots who were Monarchs of the people but not the Country as this belongs to the people"

In practice, Scotland, like England, was a feudal monarchy with limited representation in the Estates of Scotland. It's important to avoid confusion between political reality and political aspirations.

"This in effect makes the Treaty of Union null and void as basicaly the Scottish parliament had no right to give away the peoples sovereignty"

In that case, you presumably believe that the Scottish Parliament would, in an independent Scotland, have no power to join the EU. Is that your view?
69

Cringing Jock,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 14:17:34
What ever happens Mr North Britain will want to keep the monarchy, because he and all the rest of the unionist ilk know it is the rancid glue that holds their sacred union in place, its simple NO QUEEN NO UNION!


70

St.George,

27/03/2009 14:18:52
66. It's a fact! sorry if you find it hard to believe,but it is you who is the clown.
71

St.George,

27/03/2009 14:19:59
69.And 1.5 billion quid.
72

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 27/03/2009 14:21:38
67 St George
oh dear just a shame the official Government documents say different, McCrone, Diomhair but hey don't let the facts get in the way of your drivel.
Get a backbone and a parliament F*D
73

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 14:22:10
#70 LISTEN you little idiot. Tell us where you got your "fact" from.
74

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 27/03/2009 14:24:57
Is St George talking about our level of public service employees and dolites compared to those in the private sector, or what?

The figures seem a wee bit skewed and to bring kids into the equation is a bit demeaning.
75

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 27/03/2009 14:27:38
Forget this Brown posturing and let us pursue an independent Scottish republic.
76

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 27/03/2009 14:29:11
68 Fairfax
The Scottish Parliament would have to have ask the people by referendum whether to join the EU in my oppinion.
77

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 27/03/2009 14:30:03
I think we are entitled to re-instate a Scottish Monarchy if we so desire if independence is achieved.
78

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 14:31:52
#74. Who knows Dave?

Scotland has a population of 5.2 million. If, say, 50% were of working age ( a reasonable estimate), that means 2.6 million are elligible to work and biecome taxpayers.

If we have only 163,000 taxpayers, that means he is claiming 2,437,000 people are out of work. In other words - we have an unemployment rate of 94%.

The trouble with this type of mis-information is that it is posted with the intent of stirring up hatred. There cannot be any other reason.
79

Alba Abú,

27/03/2009 14:33:33
This act of settlement law was debated in the Scottish parliament ten years ago and by a majority our MPs decided that it was an affront to decency and had to go.Nothing has happened since, despite many representations to the British prime minister.All of this goes to prove that our political masters in Westminster,call the tunes.

It is now time to end this discredited union.
Any state which holds such sectarian laws cannot call itself a democracy.
80

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 27/03/2009 14:34:44
Tartan Viking @78

Well that's what I was digging at really. It shows a level of disrespect and contempt if, at the very least, kids are brought into the equation to prove some twisted point.

Now, I agree we have a fairly high level of public servitude employment, but coincidently, so does every other home nation except England. Speaks volumes to me.
81

Alba Abú,

27/03/2009 14:39:18
#75 Yes, let us pursue the path of an independent Scottish Republic,free from bigoted and sectarian laws.
Smaller countries than Scotland have made a successful future for themselves.We dont need to hang on to mother England's apron strings.
82

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 14:44:20
Tartan Viking (78): "If we have only 163,000 taxpayers, that means he is claiming 2,437,000 people are out of work. In other words - we have an unemployment rate of 94%."

The original poster has misquoted the statistic. As I recall, the 163,000 refers, not to the total number of taxpayers, but to that subset of taxpayers who contribute more in taxes than their corresponding cost of infrastructure. In other words, it probably refers to those Scottish taxpayers earning more than a fairly high threshold, say £26K. It's probably still on the low side, but makes the point that a relatively small minority of taxpayers pay taxes which fund non-infrastructure costs. The detailed statistics are probably buried in here somewhere:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/11/28151648/72

Similar statistics would pertain for England, and both relate to our income distributions. For example, one estimate is that the richest 1% of the population contributes between 20% and 25% of income tax.
83

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 14:50:27
Evening everybody!

When you think about it,Henry V111 has a lot to answer for-the murder and mayhem that has followed his desperate quest for a male heir has blighted communities and nations the world over, although killing people in the name of god seems to be a universal sport. But we have come a long way and the outdated Act needs to be urgently amended no matter how britain and ireland develop constitutionally in the future.
84

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 14:51:45
#82. Fairfax.

"The original poster has misquoted the statistic". Yes he has. It would have been nice to receive an apology but apologies are hard to give when one is a twisted liar like he is.

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Like you, I still think the figure of 163,000 is on the low side, but would be interested to see (in percentage terms) how it compares to the four countries.
85

Jo'Burg Jock,

27/03/2009 14:59:09
St.George,27/03/2009 13:46:56

States:-

"An English Parliament could, and almost certainly would, vote to leave the European Union. England would once again be a strong and independent nation. Without the votes of Scottish MPs who support Britain's membership of the EU (and who prevent our leaving)"

He/She or It goes on:-

"Without Scotland and the EU to support the English would be much better off."


According to the u.k. national statistics:-

"At the May 2005 election there were 646 constituencies"
"The number of MPs in each part of the UK is as follows:

England 529
Scotland 59
Wales 40
Northern Ireland 18"

JUST HOW does St. George arrive at his conclusion that Scottish M.P.s prevent "England" (with 529 members) leaving the E.U.

St. George is really a tragic and deluded article and is just making things up as he goes along.
86

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 15:14:25
st george

Any chance of posting a link showing us photos of you in your full Morris Dancing outfit???
87

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 15:25:06
I have been wondering for a few weeks.

Is St George just Kimba the dafty or does England have more than one person like her. At least being the patron saint of syphilis.seems an apt choice for potty mouth Kimba.
88

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 15:26:24
#85 Jo'Burg Jock.

Brilliant post. This is something I have pointed out again and again to these sad people who somehow want an "English" Parliament but are too thick to realise that they already have one effectively. 82% of the seats under English control is effectively an English Parliament. It beggars belief that this cannot sink in with them.
89

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 15:27:35
#86. Jimmy - If you look close enough you will see Roofarse the flea in the background.
90

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 15:28:06
Unless Roofarst the flea and St George the Mildred are one and the same???
91

BMeister,

27/03/2009 15:43:07
I seem to remember from previous threads that St George has the impression that only English domiciles pay anything at all in to the UK tax pot. There are no Scottish,Welsh or Irish taxpayers (individuals or businesses etc.) at all. Not net but at all.

Therefore by his/her reckoning the entire Scottish govt. budget of £31B is paid for by the English taxpayers, and similarly the Welsh and NI budgets. This has been pointed out a few times but doesn't seem to sway the dogma. Hence the post at #45 claiming that Scotland and NI take £61B from the poor old English taxpayer.

Best ignored I would say.
92

BMeister,

27/03/2009 15:45:13
#87 Alisdair

I am with you on that. I think St George is Kimba. If not then strange there are too so similar in a country of only 60 million.
93

BMeister,

27/03/2009 15:45:58
sorry, - two so similar
94

Faux Cul,

27/03/2009 15:49:39
It is all a smokescreen to divert the peasants from Broon's incompetence.

Courage mes braves.

Don't be diverted and keep the powder dry!

Our day is coming as sure as Broons tea is oot.

95

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 16:05:12
Tartan Viking (82): "82% of the seats under English control is effectively an English Parliament. It beggars belief that this cannot sink in with them."

It's obviously true that England comprises some 82% of seats, but it's slightly more complicated than that. The key point is that Scotland and Wales overwhelmingly vote for left-of-centre parties, implying that roughly 15% of seats are not available to the Conservatives. The consequence is that the swing to the the Conservatives needed to win Parliamentary power is rather higher than for Labour. This entrenched difference in political views between England, Scotland and Wales is, to my mind, yet another reason to argue for the end of the Union.
96

,

27/03/2009 16:15:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
97

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 16:25:15
#95 Fairfax. I hear what you say but the point is that 82% of all Westminster seats are in English constituencies, and have parties and candidates voted for by English residents. I take your point about the 'swing' required to overturn a Labour majority into a Conservative one, but that is not really the point (unless when people say they want an English parliament they mean an English Conservative party).

In my view it is not particularly relevant if the Conservatives or Labour are in control in Westminster. The point is that if we have 100 people with a vote and 82 of them are from the same country, the vote is, by default, massively in their favour for anything they vote on.
98

Jimmy Le Pie,

27/03/2009 17:08:54
Anyway it won't be long until the Sunday papers bring us more New Labour Sleaze (apart from the Hootsmon on Sunday!)
99

Joanna,

Cambs, England 27/03/2009 17:12:15
"44 Ribbonman,Glasgow 27/03/2009 13:35:29
#9 Joanna...... If it were said that a black person or a yellow person could not become monarch,would you feel that there was some form of denial of basic rights? Being the nice person that you are ,I just know you would!"

I quite agree Ribbonman and I also think that religion should not stop someone succeeding to the throne. However, I'm not sure that I'm all that keen on the whole Royal thing myself. They have a lot of wealth and priviledge and personally I think they are an archaic institution.

Its interesting tho' that the Catholic church, itself, discriminates against women - no female priests after all. What's your opinion on that?
100

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 17:59:59
All of us discriminate, Joanna. You do. I do.

We choose blue trousers rather than black, or peas rather than beans, etc etc.

This story is about an anachronistic institution that has practised unjustifiable discrimination for far too long.

Like every other Church, the Catholic Church is entitled to make the rules for selection process for important roles within it. I'm sure it has (what it believes to be) very good reasons for limiting that role to men.
101

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 18:00:55
Tartan, 99

It's called democracy.
102

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 18:05:09
invictager, 97

But the "monarch" can be an Islamic, Muslim, Mormon, etc....as long as he\she is not a Catholic....and be the Head of the CoE!

And the CoE is largely irrelevant today.

And the "monarch" and head of the Church of Engerlund can be of err...German stock with a Greek born hubby (also of German stock)

What a shambles!!!

103

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 18:10:13
Westminster may well have more MPs representing English Constituencies but the fact remain that a referendum is denied by principally Scots in the Labour Party who have the top jobs and therefore influence the minions below them. who by the way are not necessarily all English but have acommon interst in getting their noses in the trough of easy money and dare not defy their masters.
All we ask is,and this has to come from THe PM and his senior ministers, for areferendum to determine whether or not a TRUE English Parliament is wanted by the English Nation...recent polls say we do. we do not have a problem with Scotland being independent
104

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 18:13:02
RTB, 105:

the "fact" that you claim "remains" does not actually exist. It is your fantasy.
105

St.George,

27/03/2009 18:20:11
Why Scotland is awash with money

By Andy McSmith

You still sometimes a little old man called Joel Barnett, or Lord Barnett, shuffling about the House of Lords. He is 84, good natured, quietly spoken and intelligent, and has not held a government post for 29 years, but his name was raised in anger - yet again - at Prime Minister's Questions today, by an MP from Manchester. All across the north of England they are seriously hacked off with Joel Barnett. North of the border he is more likely to hailed as a national hero up there with Robbie Burns.

Thirty years ago, when Barnett was a treasury minister, and a bill to bring devolution to Scotland was being put through the Commons, there existed a secret formula to determine what proportion to the money spent by central government on public services such as the NHS would be allocated to Scotland. It was assumed that this formula would be revised after the new Scottish Parliament was in place. But the 1978 devolution bill collapsed, and the formula remained. In 1980, a clever Scottish academic named David Heald deduced its existence and called it "the Barnett formula", though whether Joel Barnett invented it or merely inherited it from previous treasury ministers is a matter of dispute. It is still with us, and applies now not just to Scotland , but also to Wales and Northern Ireland.

It is a complicated formula, but what it basically means is that every time central government increases the amount spent on the NHS in England by £1 billion p.a., NHS expenditure in Scotland automatically rises by £106.6 million, and in Wales by £60.2 million. That would be fair enough, if Scotland's population were a little under 11 per cent of England's, and Wales's were just over 6 per cent. In the case of Wales, the true figure is not far out; it is around 5.9%. But Scotland's population has fallen relative to England's practically every year since Barnett was a minister. In 1978, it was just over 11 per cent of England's; no
106

St.George,

27/03/2009 18:22:58
it was just over 11 per cent of England's; now it is only just over 10 per cent. Therefore, health spending per head of population has risen in Scotland, relative to per capita expenditure in England, every year for 30 years. The same is true of other public services. For example, when London got Crossrail, Scotland's transport system immediately landed a £500m bonanza.

This discrepancy passes largely unnoticed in the south of England, but they sure notice it up north. Today, it was an angry Manchester MP, Graham Stringer, who pointed out to Gordon Brown how inferior Manchester's health system is to Glasgow's. Over the side of England, in Newcastle, they feel the same. The northern regions of England have much worse deprivation than most of Scotland, yet they see public money pouring from Westminster over the border without halting on the way.

Does Gordon Brown intend to do anything about this? Not a chance - because a) he is a Scot, and b) he does not want to give his fellow Scots another reason to vote SNP.
107

Pavla,

Irvine 27/03/2009 18:25:38
Cynical pre election campaigning to go along with the much trumpeted papal visit the other week as Brown and his cabal try to rebuild bridges with the catholic community. Well! Son of the Manse it won't work.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Use the parliamentary time to deal with the current financial mess as most sane people of every faith and none couldn't give a jot about this issue at the moment.
108

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 18:29:21
Speak for yourself, Pavla, 109.

Yes, work with others countries to handle the global economic recession, but let's also deal with Britain's constitutional shame.
109

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 18:53:58
102 RLuggie- You can not compare the choice between 'peas and beans' with the issues of the Act of Succesion or the RC churches discrimination against women. With respect, a ridiculous analogy. In the modern world the disbarring of Roman catholics from the British throne, and the RC churches refusal to ordain women are equally discriminatory. You say the RC Church is entitled to make rules for limiting roles to men!! With respect, hypocritical nonsense! As the Monarchy and unwritten Constitution of the UK is presently constructed the Monarch is head of the established state sanctioned church. This is indeed an anachronism but equally so are many of the rules and restrictions imposed by the RC Church. One wonders what God would think of this-methinks SHE would be much annoyed!
110

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 18:56:57
#108 St George.

I take it you have cut and pasted your diatribe from some internet site.
"It is a complicated formula, but what it basically means is that every time central government increases the amount spent on the NHS in England by £1 billion p.a., NHS expenditure in Scotland automatically rises by £106.6 million" you say, then you add that Scotland's population is now 10% of England's. So, even if what you copied and pasted was true, Scotland is benefiting by £6.6. million a year (since 10% of £1 billion would be £100 million - our fair share in this example).
So that is £198 Million over 30 years. About a quarter of what it cost to build the new Wembley Stadium.

Ridiculous isn't it? What the real issue is here, if manchester are complaining about having a worse Health Service than Glasgow, use your vote my friend or lobby your MP to get it changed. You can do this quite easily. It has nothing to do with us. We have decided how we spend our money - you do likewise, instead of moaning on and on about how we are sponging money from you. Ask your local MP where your funds are spent and get it re-aligned.
111

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 19:06:49
Tartan Viking-whilst it is true that English MP's comprise a majority at Westminster, they do not vote as a bloc AND some of them-George Galloway eg are Scots! Westminster deals largely with Union matters-it is not the English but the BRITISH parliament. At best it is a very poor ad hoc House for english matters. England must have its own Assembly/Parliament. I would see this as the just and logical outcome of what up until now is a half baked Devolution process. As a Unionist I would prefer to see Westminster as the true Federal Parliament of the UK but whether the UK splits or not, this absurdity must be fixed.
112

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 27/03/2009 19:07:02
Geoff,sa 27/03/2009 18:53:58

Stated:-

"As the Monarchy and unwritten Constitution of the UK is presently constructed"

How can an "unwritten constitution" be constructed?

Where can I find this wonderful "construction" if it is not "written"?

Yours sincerely

Jock
113

St.George,

27/03/2009 19:07:03
112.

Don't you just love this arrangement of equals, this union of special countries, this synergy of co-operation, this twinkly golden sovereign set in a sea of moral and financial integrity.....

Naw, I don't either.....

Gordon, mate. The big boy, ever so mature, grown up solution would be to let us have our English parliament. It's a democratic thing. But we can't have it, can we Gordy? Because if we did, what the hell would you and the rest of the interfering 645 do?

England, twinned with Tibet - no government allowed and infested with occupying forces...
114

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 19:07:20
Rluggie (104): "And the "monarch" and head of the Church of Engerlund can be of err...German stock with a Greek born hubby (also of German stock)"

In fact the monarch is ultimately of Scotch stock, since George I was a great-grandson of James VI of Scotland.
115

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 19:09:54
~106 R Luggie
Remind me,just to satisfy my fantasy,you understand.The nationality of the PM,CoE etc but apart from that why do they not simply have a referendum.
It is not too difficullt aproblem they have the experience already
116

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 19:12:47
#106 Rluggie
Sorry forgot to mention what are you personally frightened of? Surely not being on your own!!!
117

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 19:19:41
114 Joburg Jock-Hi Jock-lovely evening here in Durbs. The "unwritten" constitution of the UK does indeed have construct-it is an amorphous mass of tradition and practice that is in desperate need of codification and clarification. The word 'unwritten" is not meant to be read literally. An example would be the status of the Union Jack(Flag if u will). It has no official status as the flag of the UK but it has been stated in Parliament since the early 1900's that it may be used by the British people as a national symbol and is regarded as a de facto flag of the UK. But nothing is written...
118

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 19:22:26
#113, Geoff.

You are being ridiculous! How many seats out of your 529 are held by Scottish MPs (who then conspire against you). Absolute tosh. (Probably less than the number of Scottish seats actually held by English people here - a handful in both cases).

I will ask again in the hope that the penny will drop. If more than 8 out of 10 MPs in the Westminster parliament represent English seats in English constituencies, and Scotland and Wales have devolved parliaments, why do you insist the parliament deals with Union matters? It overwhelmingly deals with ENGLISH matters. Come on now.
119

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 19:23:59
The main point I was trying to make Jock, was that most people in the UK nowadays would support the scrapping of the bar to Roman catholic or for that matter any other persons from becoming Head of State but there are practical probs to sort out first-the role of the C of E and the very structure of hereditary monarchy. By contrast The RC Church could lift the ban on women priests tomorrow.
120

Tartan Viking,

27/03/2009 19:24:44
# 115. You may as well change the name of the parliament in Westminster today. Call it the Parliament of England if you wish.

Sadly for you and the rest of you whingers.......................you will actually see no difference.

121

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 19:30:30
Tartan Viking-the devolved assemblies/Parliament can deal exclusively with Welsh Scottish and NI matters. I accept that westminster has an English majority but it does deal with Union wide matters and has a scots prime minister . It can not be a parliament for both England and the United Kingdom. Would Scots-even Scottish unionists, accept an Englishman as First minister?
122

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 19:42:46
Geoff, 111

With respect, your opening comments are incredibly stupid: only YOU are making that "ridiculous analogy" - not me.

Whilst the "monarch" and the priest situations both involve discrimination, the monarch discrimination is bizarre and unjustifiable and the priest discrimination is entirely reasonable.

Using the link to the CoE as justification for monarch bigotry is nonsense. 1/ the CoE is largely an irrelevance in Britain 2009, 2/ the offensive legislation bars Catholics....but NOT Islams, Hindus, Mormons, Intolerant Seculars, Heathens, whatever. 3/ this weak excuse is easily dismantled.
123

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 19:45:53
RTB, 117

Oh, I think we're all aware of the answers to the silly questions you pose, RTB, but....the claims you made in the opening sentence of #105 are simply your fantasy.

Were you unable to rely on reality to make a case here? Then your case is dreadfully weak.
124

Morry,

Scotland 27/03/2009 19:48:05
There was only one Mr.Brown, during the reign of Queen Victoria.
For Gordy B, his rise to fame as the present PM,
where next for the intrepid hero, the Throne itself?
125

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 19:48:28
Fairfax, 116

Thanks for that err "interesting" resume of the family tree of the Saxe Cuburg Gotha Mont Battenburg families. You must be sooooooo proud of their errrm Englishness.

Still.....as long as they're no' Kafflix.
126

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 27/03/2009 19:50:32
The current generation of Royals will quit the UK. As soon as poss. as Britain's sinking into the third word.

They have no allegencies to anyother grouping but the super rich of the old european oligarchy which is on its uppers too. Why not Colorado or Chille where they own plenty land?

If surviving Brits decide on a further stupid monarchy, they'll get one as stupid as themselves.
127

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 19:52:47
Yawn, if Labour had any intention of doing this they would have done it donkey's ages ago. They've just wheeled it out now to distract attention from all the other stuff.

It isn't only Catholics who are barred from succession to the throne either - it's anyone who does not qualify to be ''Defender of the Faith''.

Mind you it is quite funny seeing the outrage accorded to the discrimination against the Catholic Church given the said Church freely discriminates against others on a regular basis. Indeed it is proud of it.
128

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 19:55:26
Kimba/St George,

I also support English Independence. I think it is wrong for the labour party to use the Scottish MP's to vote through legislation that affects only English people and area's.

I dream of the day we can all deal with our own problems in our own ways.

Trouble is in Scotland we cannot achieve this without the English seeing the reasons.

Independence and self determination for all nations and peoples.
129

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 19:55:27
124 RLuggie-why is the priest discrimination entirely reasonable? Also with regard to the C of E and the monarch, whilst i entirely agree with you that the barring of RC's is an unacceptable anachronism, in the CONTEXT of the history of the C of e, WHY and HOW it was founded, it is quite clear why a roman catholic could not become Monarch. Outdated yes but it does have a chain of simple logic that is not so simple to undo.
130

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 19:56:12
7 - quite right, the easiest way to resolve the situation is to abolish the racist elitist Royal Family altogether. And establish a secular Republic where all are free to worship in the private sphere, and the state favours none of them.
131

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 19:56:53
Geoff, 121

Yes, the Church COULD change the rules to allow women to become Priests tomorrow. It is "possible", but as it's entirely contrary to the teachings of the Church it's as likely as Paul Gascoigne being installed as Queen of England tomorrow.
132

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 19:59:40
Geoff, 131,

You dont like\agree with the Church's teachings in this area? Fair enough. Leave the Church! It's optional!!!

Your subsequent comments re historic matters are true but historic. Hello hello? It's 2009? Hello?
133

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:01:14
Observer, 132

Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed.
134

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:01:29
* are respected
135

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:03:02
Observer, 129

You discriminate.

I discriminate.

We all discriminate.

The Monarch discriminates against Catholics because of some threat in the 18th century.

It is sick.
136

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 27/03/2009 20:04:24
Geoff,sa 27/03/2009 19:19:41

Stated:-

"The word 'unwritten" is not meant to be read literally"

Exactly what is meant to be READ "literally" when refering to a an "unwritten constitution"?

PERHAPS - If it is not Written it cannot be read!
137

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 20:04:55
RLuggie-Paul Gascoine as Queen! Now there's a thought. Did u see him on the SkyNews the other night? A sad figure.
Thanks for the chat gentlemen-off to my scratcher.
Good Night.
138

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:07:48
Geoff, 139

Aye, I did see him. My heart bleeds for him. I suspect he's not much longer for this world.

He's much more worthy as Monarch than the wee fat German commoner that talks posh in thon big hoose down in Berkshire.
139

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 20:09:29
138 Joburg Jock-hey Jock gimme a break i've had a couple of beers and need to kip=off to watch the Sharks tomorrow.
140

Tris,

27/03/2009 20:12:14
#20 St George....

"17. All new labour are trying to do is make the monarchy more democratic"

How can the monarhy be democratic, more, or less.. By its very nature it is the opposite of democratic. We get them, for life, good or bad, whether we like it or not. We can't move them on after 5 years or 4 years. We have them from the time they ascend the throne till the day they pop their clogs.

Would you loike mto explain how they become more democratic if they get to marry catholics, or women get to be the queen instead of men?

Democratic it is not.

What New Labour is trying to do is deflect attention from the fact that the "New Bretton Woods" of Brown's imagination is looking like a bit of a flop with his own central bank manager telling him he can't afford his policies, and the minister he put in charge of organising it running it down.
141

Daveunderwater,

Auchterturra 27/03/2009 20:12:18
If the discrimination against Catholics is lifted, will the same apply to

Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Bhuddist and all other religions

Or will they be discriminated against?
142

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2009 20:12:24
140-yes RL-Georgie Best all over again. The demon alcohol!
143

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:16:43
135 - ''intolerant seculars were suppressed'' so you can't tolerate my intolerance of the church's intolerance ? The question you have to answer is this - do I harm people by my intolerance of intolerance ? Or is it intolerance of people who can't do anything about the way they were born which does harm ? Like the Church ?
144

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:17:51
Davie, 143:

The only religion the "Monarchy" discriminates against right now is Catholics.

145

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:19:40
137 The monarch discriminates against anyone who is not qualified to be ''Defender of the Faith''.

To tell you the truth I don't think anyone would give a monkeys if the bar on Catholics was lifted. Now - let's see a muslim in line to the throne - then you would see intolerance in all it's glory.

146

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:20:48
146 Wrong.
147

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:20:56
Observer, 135

That's a low life post, Observer.

What I actually said was: "Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

You should be ahamed of yourself.
148

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:23:06
Low life, 146:

Aye, you have a point.

Correction: the worst excesses of Monarch religious discrimination is directed against Catholics.

In the offensive, offending and current legislation other religious groups are not mentioned at all.
149

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:24:07
149 what do you call excesses ? Why should any form of secularism be suppressed ? It respects your right to follow your faith - in the private sphere. It just demands that religion and state are kept seperate.
150

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:25:13
Observer, 147

Well, we've had a philandering, German family with a racial habit so we've had some practice.
151

Tris,

27/03/2009 20:25:49
#49. So get rid of us PLEASE...

We really quite like the English, (they're really quaint and quite amusing) but we don't want to be ruled by them. We seem to be about as much of a liablility to England as Greenland is to Denmark so please, please, please get rid of us. Kick us out.

Maybe we'd get some decent governance then and stop this idiotic nonsense of following whatever the American President tells us is our policy.

And while you're about it, leave the EU. You've been nothing but a damned pain to them ever since you got in, just like De Gaulle said you'd be. Oh and I imagine that the Commonwealth would probably like to get rid of you too. You boss it about with them like you were still in charge.... Such a joke that the likes of New Zealand, Canada and Australia would want to take orders from a bankrupt state like England.

152

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:26:43
Low life, 151

Do you actually read my posts?

Can we discuss what I said rather than what you imagine I said?
153

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:26:48
150 Bar the odd Jew we didn't have any other religious beliefs in those days, apart from the various Christian ones. We are a multi-cultural society now and there are numerous religions which are effectively discriminated against by this Act.
154

St.George,

27/03/2009 20:28:20


Why should we English be so surprised at the discriminatory levels of funding to Scotland and the government's refusal to bring some form of equity to England?

Our Prime Minister who represents a Scottish constituency is in charge of policies that apply to England but not his own constituents. Gordon Brown is England's de facto First Minister, unelected and with no mandate.

Let us remember that Gordon Brown, his puppet Chancellor and many other Scottish MPs publically signed Scotland's Claim of Right in which the pledged to make Scotland's interests paramount.

They have certainly kept that pledge, to the detriment of England.
155

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:30:30
Low life, 155: aye, and the discrimination is by far worst against Catholics.
156

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:30:54
154 You said that ''the worst excesses of intolerant extremist seculars were suppressed''

Now - what do you define as extreme secularism that needs to be suppressed ? I don't think we need to suppress any form of expression unless it does others significant harm or could lead to violence.
157

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:32:40
Low life, 151

any curtailment of freedom of religious expression is unacceptable.
158

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:32:44
156 Ssssh Don't remind the unionists (especially Smee) that Gordon Brown signed the Claim of Right. They all (including Brown) are desperate to forget that.
159

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:34:09
Low life, 158:

I know what I said, Low Life.

Now, before I answer your question, please explain your shameful responses.
160

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:37:47
159 Bit of a woolly statement but on the whole I would agree, people should be able to express their beliefs of course. That doesn't however translate into always getting their own way if their beliefs clash with others.
161

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:40:06
161 I already have the ball's in your court.
162

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:40:44
Low life, 162

Oh, I seek no favour, just the freedom to practice my religion free of the scourge of aggressive, extremist intolerant secularism.

And should my MP be a Catholic and influenced by his\her Catholic beliefs then that is entirely acceptable too.

For he\she is free to practice his\her beliefs too.
163

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 20:42:29
Low life, 163:

in which post # did you explain your shameful responses to my post #135?
164

Tris,

27/03/2009 20:48:34

Why do we have a state religion? Does the state believe in God? And, if it does, does it believe in the English god, invented by Henry VIII because he was pis$ed at the pope?

Can someone explain that, please?

And, come to that, why is the state religion one which barely exists in Scotland?

If we have to have one, shouldn't the Queen of Scots have to be a member of the Church of Scotland?

Another question. What would happen if Willie suddenly thought to himself... "I don't believe any of this stuff; I really can't go along with it."

Would he have to take an early bath?
165

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:48:57
164 Eh ? The only siatuation I imagine an MP's religious beliefs would impact on is matters of conscience like abortion, stem cell research etc. That's why we generally have free votes on that (apart from Labours recent whipping of the embryo bill which I disagreed with, although I was in favour of the bill).

So of course an MP is entitled to practise their beliefs. Has someone threatened that ?

Where I think people take issue is with the Church issuing a public demand to Catholic MP's. That to me made life a lot tougher for Catholic MP's than it had to be. After all non-Catholics disagree with abortion etc too.
166

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 20:52:01
165 Tut tut - you used the word ''supression''. I don't think I need to justify getting a tad annoyed with that.
167

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 20:58:43
Rluggie (127): "Thanks for that err "interesting" resume of the family tree of the Saxe Cuburg Gotha Mont Battenburg families."

There were many more names: yours merely begin in the 19th century. Still they all go back to James VI/I of Scotland.

"You must be sooooooo proud of their errrm Englishness."

I'm a republican, as you should be able to tell from my pseudonym. On secession, they're all yours.
168

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:10:57
Low life, 167: poor answer. You cannot justify your low life behaviour.
169

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:12:39
166 It's a historical anomoly brought about by the so-called ''glorious revolution''. Ironically enough, that also brought about the Scottish Claim of Right of 1689 which is an important Scottish constitutional document confirming the sovereignty of the people not Parliament. So every cloud has a silver lining.
170

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:13:06
Fairfax, 169: they're Germans, Sir!!!
171

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:14:04
170 You're wittering now. I condemn ''supression'' mebbes you should have picked another word.
172

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 21:14:50
Tris (166): "And, come to that, why is the state religion one which barely exists in Scotland?"

It's the Church of England, not the Church of Britain. Surely a Scot should not confuse the two . . .

"If we have to have one, shouldn't the Queen of Scots have to be a member of the Church of Scotland?"

Technically she is, when in Scotland, although she has no special status. The Coronation Oath contains a clause to protect the security of the CofS, nodding to Charles I's failed attempts to impose a fairly papist version of the CofE in Scotland in the 1630s, which led to the Covenant and the Civil Wars.
173

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:16:08
Albeit a tongue in cheek post, Tris, 166, your final quip poses a good question.

The vast majority of other young men conclude that organised religion (all brands) is a lot of shoite.

So, how's he fixed then as the headhoncho of the CoE?
174

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:18:30
Fairfax, 174

isnt it farcical to recall historical events as tepid justification for the actions of the largely irrelevant "monarchy" in 2009?



175

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 21:18:39
Rluggie (172): "Fairfax, 169: they're Germans, Sir!!!"

They're partly German. Would you also refuse to recognize the Britishness of more recent immigrants, or is your ethnic bias restricted to our current dynasty? In any case, George I of Hanover derived his claim to the throne from James VI of Scots (I of England), his great-grandfather.

I have already suggested above that we should move to a different line of descent from the Stuarts, specifically to Rachel Stirling, daughter of Archibald Stirling and niece of David Stirling. Any supporters?
176

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:19:27
135RLuggie, 27/03/2009 20:01:14
Observer, 132

Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed.

======================================

I am sorry I have lost you on this one.

"Extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed"

Firstly list define Secular

–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).

==================================

Please provide examples "the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars"

So we can discuss how and why you would like to "Suppress" them.

In order to give you a chance you can pick any period in history you like for examples.

177

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:20:25
Low life, 173: and you're the word police?

You cannae use that word....and you cannae use that one!

Your posts were shameful but you do not have the decency to admit it.
178

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 21:20:40
RLuggie (176): "snt it farcical to recall historical events as tepid justification for the actions of the largely irrelevant "monarchy" in 2009?"

Yes, hence my support for Rachel Stirling, although I would prefer a secular republic. Still, if you're going to make historical statements, it's better to make correct ones, rather than crass otiose ones.
179

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:22:48
Fairfax, 177

Their names are awee clue!!

Mont Battenburg....Saxe Coburg Gotha?

Dont mention the war!!!
180

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:23:20
177 Can I nominate myself ? I think I've got as good a claim as anyone else. I mean what happens if (heaven forbid) Wills doesn't make it onto the throne and Harry gets shooed in ? He's a Hewitt ! And how many times has that happened before ?
181

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:24:26
Fairfax, 180

I'm ambivalent whether monarchy or republic, Sir.

Secularism is OK by me, but it tends to be intolerant secularism and that's unacceptable.
182

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:25:43
179 Struggling badly - ''suppression'' is not just a word.
183

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:27:08
Low life, 182,

Aye, many times.

That German crowd are commoners and imposters.

The German parasitical imposters in the Palace milking the British taxpayer - wee fat Betty has sat on her throne for 50+ years and done SFA about the anti Catholic bigotry at the heart of her institution.
184

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:28:06
Low life, 184:

no, it's a word you've decided cannot be used here, Adolf.
185

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 27/03/2009 21:28:46
LONG LIVE OUR NOBLE QUEEN

Goodnight
186

,

27/03/2009 21:29:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
187

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:30:07
Alasdair, 178

do you have an English language version of post 178?

I dont know WHAT you're asking....and I dont know WHO you're asking.
188

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:30:28
185 The present incumbent Queen is about as good as you can get for a monarch. I like her. I think it is because of her personality that we still have a Monarchy. By all means lets discuss republicanism (which I am all for) but she as an individual I don't think deserves criticism.
189

,

27/03/2009 21:30:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
190

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:30:59
RTB, 187: an inspired post. Now GTF.
191

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:32:18
Low life, 190

Tell us what steps she's taken to remove the anti Catholic discrimination that has blighted her 50 years on the throne?
192

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 21:33:06
RLuggie (181): "Mont Battenburg....Saxe Coburg Gotha? "

If you're going to over-simplify, then at least be accurate: It was Battenberg until WW1, after which that family changed their name to Mountbatten because of anti-German sentiment -- Prince Louis of Battenberg was First Sea Lord; his son was Mountbatten, whilst his grandson was the current Duke of Edinburgh.

As for Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, they were only some of the German ancestors of the current dynasty. There were Wittelsbach, Nassau, Orange (German, French and Dutch), and many others. Still the claim to the throne is via the Winter Queen, Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter of James VI/I, who married Elector Frederick. In short, they revert to Scotland on independence.

193

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:33:26
186 Suppression is not an ambiguous word. For someone who is posting objecting to discrimination to wish to suppress your intellectual opponents is a tad strange no ?
194

Fairfax,

27/03/2009 21:34:49
Observer (182): "177 Can I nominate myself ? I think I've got as good a claim as anyone else."

If you're the actress Rachel Stirling, descendant of Charle II, then definitely.
195

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:35:41
Fairfax, 194: I know all that, Sir, I'm just having a wee bit of fun ya diddy.

I think we all know they're as royal as a lump of dog shoite.
196

,

27/03/2009 21:36:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
197

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:37:07
193 Don't be silly. The Queen doesn't institute legislation, she just has to read it out and approve it. She's a figure-head. I've always thought of the Royals as being like animals in a Zoo really. They have been bred in captivity and put on public display. Gilded cages, but cages nonetheless. Time they were released.
198

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:38:24
Low life, 195:

You're not still gurning on about what words we can and cant use here, are you? Jeeeziz!

Hang yer head in shame, Low life.

199

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:39:16
198 correct. It's the institution of monarchy that is the objectionable thing, not necessarily the people. Although some manage to be personally objectionable as well.
200

,

27/03/2009 21:39:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
201

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:40:04
Low life, 199:

who suggested the Queen institutes legislation?

in which post?
202

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:40:07
189RLuggie, 27/03/2009 21:30:07
Alasdair, 178

do you have an English language version of post 178?

I dont know WHAT you're asking....and I dont know WHO you're asking.

========================
Numpty,

Please tell me which words you are struggling with as from your other posts it does seem that you are having problems.

Much of the content of that post you quote is actually from your previous posts which in truth are nonsense. So maybe that is where the problem lies.

Or maybe

It is the quotes from the ENGLISH dictionary you are struggling with as your posts would suggest.

I do not believe I used a single word that would confuse anyone who has managed to finish primary school. Apologies if that counts you out.


203

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:42:20
Al, 204: oh dear...adolescent insults. Ho hum.

I was only asking you to clarify your confusing post.

204

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:44:50
Rib, 202,

naw....they moan about the Scottish boy who kicks a ball for another country calling him an imposter......whilst feting a Dutch Prince who deserted his own country to become King of another and fought battles in foreign lands!!!
205

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:45:27
195Observer,, Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:33:26
186 Suppression is not an ambiguous word. For someone who is posting objecting to discrimination to wish to suppress your intellectual opponents is a tad strange no ?

=====================
I do not think you are going to make any headway trying to apply logic with this numpty.

A tat excitable with the name calling. "Low Life" I have re read all your posts and cannot see at what point you offended the dafty so much. Seems to have taken a serious offense at your posts.
206

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:46:58
205RLuggie, 27/03/2009 21:42:20
Al, 204: oh dear...adolescent insults. Ho hum.

I was only asking you to clarify your confusing post.

============================

Buggerluggies,

Please take a read back over your own posts. Then take a deep breath, wait until the embarrassment goes away, then follow it.
207

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:47:39
Al, 207: your ignorance is not my problem. You do appear to share the same low moral standards as yer Low Life pal. She cannot justify her posts, and has meekly resorted to an assumed role as the word police.
208

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:49:18
Al, 208; Yep, I'm familiar with what I've posted.

I just cant make any sense of your #178.

Sorry...it really is poorly constructed.
209

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:49:45
Oh good grief this is politics not football.

203 You are losing it completely you suggested that the Queen should take steps to remove the anti-Catholic discrimination that has ''blighted'' her reign.

You're just all over the place because you can't justify your ''suppression'' comment.
210

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:52:29
207 You are right Alasdair, it's just I usually like to know where I've offended, so I can do/not do it again.........
211

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:52:31
#209 RLuggie,

I would not burden you with anymore problems that you already seem to have.

I ask again which part of my post was not in English.

And what exactly are you arguing.

It seems to me everyone here agree's we need a Republic or are you arguing for a Catholic Queen at some future point.
212

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:53:35
Low life, 211

Oh dear....are light hearted football quips banned too? Who elected you to your role in the Word Police?

Not so busy Lizzie SHOULD HAVE taken steps to address the sickening discrimination at the heart of the institution she embodies.
213

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:54:14
#212 Observer,

I am not sure it is you who has offended RLuggie or the lack of medication or the voices in her head.
214

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:54:21
Low Life, 211

Were my questions at #203 too difficult for you?
215

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:55:26
Al, 215

looking again at #178 I humbly suggest that the confusion is yours.
216

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:55:37
214 The heart of the institution that Lizzie embodies is class privilege and defence of the Union. Discriminating against Catholics is pretty well down on her list. You make her sound like Pastor Jack Glass.
217

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:56:01
214RLuggie, 27/03/2009 21:53:35
Low life, 211

Oh dear....are light hearted football quips banned too? Who elected you to your role in the Word Police?

Not so busy Lizzie SHOULD HAVE taken steps to address the sickening discrimination at the heart of the institution she embodies.

========================

Aye,

This is surely the most pressing of matters, in the world of the deranged.

I do however agree with your point the Act of Settlement
218

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:56:26
Al, 213

It jist didnae make sense!!!

It still doesnt!!!

Have you noticed? No-one has answered it!!!!
219

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 21:56:48
215 I wonder what she's drinking ?
220

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 21:57:49
219Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,, 27/03/2009 21:56:01
214RLuggie, 27/03/2009 21:53:35
Low life, 211

Oh dear....are light hearted football quips banned too? Who elected you to your role in the Word Police?

Not so busy Lizzie SHOULD HAVE taken steps to address the sickening discrimination at the heart of the institution she embodies.

========================

Aye,

This is surely the most pressing of matters, in the world of the deranged.

I do however agree with your point the Act of Settlement is offensive. But changing the rules will still not change the COE situation.

You will never see a Catholic Monarchy in this country. That is certain whether it is fair or not
221

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 21:58:01
Low life, 218

Are you seriously suggesting that in 50+years of her parasitical existence she couldnae find some time to question deep rooted bigotry in the monarchy?
222

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/03/2009 21:58:34
Brown has totally wrecked the uk economy and he is wasting his time about who the royals shoule be alowed to marry !!
The man is barking mad.
223

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:00:08
#220 RLuggie

REF My post #178

Please provide examples "the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars" (Your Quote)

So we can discuss how and why you would like to "Suppress" them.

In order to give you a chance you can pick any period in history you like for examples.
224

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:00:11
223 If Liz was going to wake up to the nature of the monarchy I think a historical anomoly which bars Catholics - and many many others - from the throne would be the least of her worries. The nature of the monarchy itself is surely the issue ? Not who gets to sit on the chair ?
225

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:00:21
Al, 222

I see you think this is the most pressing matter.

And you're crystal ball is is fine fettle.
226

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:01:43
RLuggie,

Do you understand that.

You made a Statement at #135 and I have asked for examples.

Lets get back to the beginning.


227

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:03:08
Low Life, 226

So, she's done SFA in 50 years about the deep rooted bigotry in the monarchy!

Then she's not the fine lady you suggested.

She's unsuitable for such lofty role.
228

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:04:41
Al, 225:

thanks for clarifying your post.

NOW it makes sense. Thanks.

just a pity you couldnt do it with civility when I asked earlier.
229

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:04:51
229 No one is suitable for such a lofty role because there shouldn't be such a lofty role.

Anyway stop avoiding the issue. On what basis do you think it acceptable to suppress secular opinion ?
230

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:05:46
224: oh dear....another ignorant numpty.
231

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:06:12
Low Life 231: On what basis do you think it acceptable to suppress secular opinion ?
232

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:06:22
#231 I correct myself, I meant your definition of extremely intolerant secular opinion.
233

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:07:22
Low Life, 231:

What I actually said was: "Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

You should be ahamed of yourself.
234

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:07:39
#230 RLuggie,

You ask for civility yet show very little. You have been referring to Observer as Low Life for the last 100 posts.

So lets all calm down and get back to Suppression of Secular opinion.

Over to you..
235

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:09:20
235 Just answer the bleedin' question. What is your definition of secular opinion that requires to be ''suppressed'' ?
236

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:09:34
#235 RLuggie.

For the third time.

Examples of "worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars "

This is what I want to understand.

Any examples would be helpfull
237

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:09:48
Al, 236;

"So lets all calm down and get back to Suppression of Secular opinion."


In which post # did I call for the suppression of secular opinion?

Over to you....
238

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:12:26
Low Life, 237:

in which post # did I suggest ....."secular opinion that requires to be ''suppressed'' ?
239

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:12:30
239 Are we all going to die of old age before you answer the question which has been clearly defined for you ?
240

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:13:10
Al, 238

In which post # did I call for the suppression of secular opinion?

Over to you....
241

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:13:41
#239 RLuggie

In #132(I think) & #235

"Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected,

*****THIS BIT*****and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed." **********

I am quoting you! for the 4th TIME!!!



242

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:13:58
Low Life, 241:

in which post # did I suggest ....."secular opinion that requires to be ''suppressed'' ?
243

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:15:02
Al, 243

In which post # did I call for the suppression of secular opinion?

Over to you....
244

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:15:45
Observer,

I will have to leave you with this one.

Seems like RLuggie is just going to do an Ian Gray.

245

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:16:58
244 You are somwhat losing credibility here. You suggested suppressing secular opinion as defined by you as extremist and intolerant. That's where I came in. You have been calling me low-life ever since. I think you need to answer what your definition is of extremist and intolerant that requires secularism to be suppressed. Either that or quite frankly look like a diddy.
246

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:17:25
THIS ONE

135RLuggie, 27/03/2009 20:01:14
Observer, 132

Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed.
247

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:17:53
Low Life & Confused,

Simple question:

BOTH OF YOU HAVE CLAIMED THAT CALLED FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF SECULAR OPINION.

Can you tell me which post number I said that, please?
248

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:17:56
AND THIS ONE

FFS

235RLuggie, 27/03/2009 22:07:22
Low Life, 231:

What I actually said was: "Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

You should be ahamed of yourself.
249

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:18:07
246 what an apt comparison ! Goodnight.
250

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:19:03
Al, 248

Read it again.

I didnt call for the suppression of secular opinion.
251

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:20:07
Low Life, 251:

always pleased to accept your surrender!!

You really made an €rse of yourself tonight!!!

252

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:21:11
252 You most certainly did call for suppression of secular opinion. You attached the words extremist and intolerant but these are descriptors, the active word is secular.
253

Joanna,

27/03/2009 22:21:49
"This story is about an anachronistic institution that has practised unjustifiable discrimination for far too long."

So its OK for the Catholic Church to discriminate but not the monarchy.

Hyprocrite.
254

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:23:05
Low Life, 247

My post is still there and is perfectly clear.

As ever, you tried to twist it into something else.

Your prerogative. Your problem. And you even decided to appoint yourself as the word police!!!

I say again:

Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

255

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

27/03/2009 22:23:08
251Observer,, Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:18:07
246 what an apt comparison ! Goodnight.

Goodnight.

Rluggie,

Congratulations on being Phuckwitt of the night.

You have left me speechless with your genius and intellect.

I do not usually get to converse with Labour MSP's so closely.
256

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:25:32
Fool, 255;

I guess you're a bit dim, Joanna.

ALL of us discriminate.

The Church.

You.

Me.

Others.

Really - it's OK.

It happens.

But discriminating solely on the basis of one's religion is wrong. There is no credible justification for it. Surely even you can see that, Jo?
257

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:27:25
Al, 257

DELIGHTED to accept your surrender too!

Your post was nonsensical, and then you asked me repeatedly to justify something I hadnt actually said.

And when I ask you to provide the post number....you and yer low life pal run away.

Cheeeeeeeeeerio now!!!
258

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:30:45
256 suppressed:

To put an end to:forcibly subdue
To curtail or prohibit the activities of
To keep from being revealed published or circulated
To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind
To inhibit the expression of an impulse or thought
To reduce the incidence of or severity of (in a medical context)

I am assuming you don't mean it in a medical context, so what extremist or intolerant secularism do you think it ethically correct to ''suppress'' ?
259

Joanna,

27/03/2009 22:31:47
RLuggie

Discrimination against women is OK in your book is it? Tells me all I need to know about you.

As already said:

"Congratulations on being Phuckwitt of the night."

Now I must go you stay and play nicely with yourself.

260

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:35:11
Jo, 261,

"Discrimination against women is OK in your book is it?"

NB: those are your words, not mine.

"Tells me all I need to know about you."

Actually, they're YOUR WORDS so they tell us more about YOU!!!
261

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:36:52
Low Life, 260

You're back asking questions.....but loads of mine are STILL unanswered!!!

Can I have some answers, please, or are you too frightened?
262

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:38:12
262 Presumably Joanna, like me, thinks that women and homosexuals are equal to all others. Is that extremist and intolerant secularism by chance ?
263

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:39:13
Low Life, 260

Earlier I asked you:

in which post # did I suggest ....."secular opinion that requires to be ''suppressed'' ?


264

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:40:53
Low Life, 264: are you asking for my view or unilaterally attributing a view to me.....as you are prone to doing?
265

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:41:48
265. I have answered you in numerous posts. Now come on you are becoming boring. Just spit it out - tell mw what you find extreme and intolerant about secularism.
266

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:42:36
Low Life

in 203 I asked you:

who suggested the Queen institutes legislation?

in which post?
267

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:43:08
266 I don't normally attribute meaning to people with a question mark. Usually I use a ? when I am asking a question.
268

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:44:06
Low Life, 267: You're lying. You didnt.

269

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:45:15
268 Tut tut diversionary tactic. Answer the question it is very simple. On what basis do you think secularism should be suppressed - what are the extremist and intolerant triggers that would make you do it ?
270

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:45:56
Low Life, 269: Well done. What's the answer to 266?
271

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:47:03
Low Life, 272: in which post did I say "secularism should be suppressed"?
272

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:49:30
Low Life,

Your vivid imagination is giving you problems again.

I dont think secularism should be suppressed
I have never said secularism should be suppressed.
It's not my view.

Have you been drinking tonight?
273

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:51:19
Ah I've got it you must be Baffled in disguise. That circular argument, that complete inability to justify anything you post. You made a statement, you have been challenged, you can't back it up. Now normally when I find myself in a position of posting rashly - and we've all done it, I just post something along the lines of, that was an ill considerd remark and I withdraw it. It's not difficult to do that. In the heat of argument we all say things we wish we hadn't - and you did tonight.
274

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 22:57:21
Low Life, 275

No, not at all...

Here's what I actually said:

"Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

No regrets.

Stand by every word of it.

A perfectly honourable, decent, fair, balanced post.

Now, you have chosen to make various erroneous interpretations... for example: in 271 "you think secularism should be suppressed"

Actually, I dont think that at all. I think secularism is an entirely credible, acceptable position. You're wrong. Your problem!!!
275

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 22:59:53
Jeezo you are hard work. Ok. What is your definition of '' worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars '' that could lead to them being '' were suppressed."

It's a bloody obvious question that you need to answer.
276

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 23:08:52
Low Life, 277

I'm hard work?

Read #276 again, Low Life.

Are you STILL not getting it?

Then read 274.

How about a straight answer to 273?



277

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 23:16:09
#261 Joanna......Great post totally agree! But I must say that I was surprised to see you advise as such.
Anyway! when are you going to have lunch with me.
This is not the first time that I have invited you to lunch. I think that your opinions are very similar to my own,I would love to exchange views over a bottle of claret. Come on Jo,say yes!
278

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 23:27:59
278 Ask your mummy to explain it to you. When you say:

''the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

that generally means you want opinion suppressed.

Go Joanna go ! Exchanging views over a bottle of claret - how civilised a chat up line is that ?
279

Alba Abú,

Edinburgh 27/03/2009 23:36:16
#280... Very civilised.One that has worked in the past!
Are you a bit jealous of me and Joanna?
280

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 23:38:48
No, ha ha, I'm not hunting. But I have made a few real-life friends from posting in the past it's nice to put a face to the moniker.
281

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 23:43:18
Low Life, 280

when I say: ''the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

I mean: ''the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed."

It's really NOT complicated!!!

YOU chose to take other meanings. YOUR PROBLEM.

Which part of "I dont think secularism should be suppressed, I have never said secularism should be suppressed. It's not my view".....dont you understand?

You really have made an absolute €rse of yourself tonight, Low Life.


282

RLuggie,

27/03/2009 23:46:03
STILL no answer to 273....

Ho hum....

283

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/03/2009 23:48:32
Oh dream on 283 I have been babysitting and the telly is rubbish - you have afforded me some entertainment and have proved that you are a stranger to logic, reason, or debate. If you say that secular opinion has to be suppressed when it is extreme or intolerant there is a burden upon you to define what extreme or intolerant is. You have, despite many many prompters, failed to define that. Therefore, the reader can only conclude that you posted in haste, and can repent at leisure.
284

Alba Abú,

28/03/2009 00:00:31
#285 Observer......Do you think that Joanna will join me for lunch? You have been babbysitting and the telly has been rubbish.Do you think that I have a chance......for romance.....?
285

RLuggie,

28/03/2009 07:19:02
Low Life, 285

Quote: "I have been babysitting and the telly is rubbish"

Plainly you were not paying attention to matters here as you have taken my good, decent, fair, balanced post and by removing a few key words tried to transform it into something it's not.

Repeatedly you insist that I "say that secular opinion has to be suppressed" but I have oft told you that this is NOT my view and when I ask you to tell us what post you think I said it.....you cannot.

What I actually said:

"Alternatively we could have a democracy where civil liberties and respected, and the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars were suppressed. "

I also said:

"I dont think secularism should be suppressed, I have never said secularism should be suppressed. It's not my view"

Suppressing the worst excesses of extremist intolerant seculars is an entirely valid, decent, fair, balanced desire that I'm sure would be suported by the vast majority of decent people.

I'm proud to say that the UK is not accustomed to supporting the worst excesses of ANY extremists and I do find your response to my moderate statement rather troubling.

Hang your head in shame, Low Life.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.