ErsatzThistle Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Trying to be all things to all people didn't work during the referendum. Pacifying loyalists by keeping Queen was an example - the Loyalists and the proud to be British brigade will always vote for the Union. We should make clear that the Queen is being ditched in the next referendum. She is part of the Establishment that will do anything to hang onto power and wealth and all to the detriment of the people. We're not subjects of any feckin King or Queen, we're all equal citizens now. Sadly I still can't believe the amount of Scots who get all misty eyed and stand to attention when the subject of the bloody monarchy comes up. How many people still turn out at Balmoral swooning at the sight of Charles and his horse waving at them ? How the hell can any sane person love and respect these royal morons who are entitled to all this wealth and grand status purely because of who their cousin shagging ancestors where ? Roll on the Republic of Scotland Plenty of room on the Balmoral estate for a few council houses ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/parliament-must-censure-queen-over-referendum-interference Parliament must censure Queen over referendum interference December 17 2014 Campaign group Republic has called on parliament to reprimand the Queen for making a direct intervention in the Scottish referendum. The call comes after the Guardian revealed the deliberate intent behind comments made by the Queen in the run up to the September vote on Scottish independence. The report makes clear that the comments were part of a planned intervention on behalf of the No campaign, as Republic claimed at the time. Republic takes no view on Scottish independence but believes the Queen has over-stepped the boundaries of her position as head of state by interfering in the democratic process. Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said today: "The Guardian makes clear that the Queen was prepared to take deliberate steps to encourage people to vote No in the referendum. Regardless of how people feel about Scottish independence we should all be alarmed at such a political intervention by a hereditary monarch." "We would normally expect a head of state to take an active interest in such a momentous referendum, but the deal with the monarchy is that the monarch stays quiet and keeps out of these debates." "The real problem is the system. But that doesn't excuse the Queen making her views known in such an underhand way while having her press office insist she is impartial." "We're calling on MPs to censure the Queen for her intervention in the referendum campaign. Of course the Queen is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't - but the bottom line is that the rules are there and the Queen can't pick and choose when to follow them." "This is why our head of state needs to be elected - so if they get it wrong like this they can be held to account."- See more at: http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/parliament-must-censure-queen-over-referendum-interference#sthash.G6LOy826.dpuf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) Never shed a tear when Di was killed but cried buckets when her Royal Yacht was scrapped. She is purring her shriveled arse off right now. Can you hear it. Edited December 26, 2014 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 (edited) So our head of state has no respect for the democratic process and the head of state is passed down by hereditary in which there are no checks and balances regarding the appropriateness of that person to the role. In fact the next in line had Jimmy Saville as a mentor. " Prince of Wales leads tribute to Sir Jimmy Savile The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall have led tributes to Sir Jimmy, who died at his home in Leeds today." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8857672/Prince-of-Wales-leads-tribute-to-Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html "Princess Diana even mentioned him in the famous “Squidgygate” taped conversation she had with James Gilbey in 1989 where she describes him as a “sort of mentor” to Charles. The Prince of Wales’s former secretary Sarah Goodall remembers him in a similar vein. In her book The Palace Diaries she has an entry for May 1989 where she recalls one of his visits. “Today is a strange day,” she writes. “A middle-aged man with a shock of white hair, dressed in a white boiler suit and covered in gold jewellery, has entered one of the offices.” She discovers that Savile is “working with Diana on a project for Stoke Mandeville hospital” but that he is actually there that day “in another capacity altogether – as a marriage guidance counsellor.” As a royal divorce seems imminent, however, she notes: “The counselling of Jimmy Savile has come to naught. Jim cannot fix this one.” http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/280837/Jimmy-Savile-The-Royal-court-jester Hmmmm sounds legit (as the young ones say) EDIT: "Sir Jimmy was a close friend of Baroness Thatcher during her tenure as Prime Minister, and was said to have spent 13 consecutive Christmases watching television, “shoes off in front of the fire”, with the Thatchers at Chequers." Edited December 26, 2014 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbruman Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Well done Eddard - you certainly put any pretenders for your crown as TAMB village idiot firmly in their place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossy Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Trying to be all things to all people didn't work during the referendum. Pacifying loyalists by keeping Queen was an example - the Loyalists and the proud to be British brigade will always vote for the Union. We should make clear that the Queen is being ditched in the next referendum. She is part of the Establishment that will do anything to hang onto power and wealth and all to the detriment of the people. I would certainly include at the least, a promise of a vote within 5 years on holding onto the monarchy or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
village idiot Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Well done Eddard - you certainly put any pretenders for your crown as TAMB village idiot firmly in their place. I guess I just got ousted !! To be fair reckon he deserves it more than me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/parliament-must-censure-queen-over-referendum-interference Parliament must censure Queen over referendum interference December 17 2014 Campaign group Republic has called on parliament to reprimand the Queen for making a direct intervention in the Scottish referendum. The call comes after the Guardian revealed the deliberate intent behind comments made by the Queen in the run up to the September vote on Scottish independence. The report makes clear that the comments were part of a planned intervention on behalf of the No campaign, as Republic claimed at the time. Republic takes no view on Scottish independence but believes the Queen has over-stepped the boundaries of her position as head of state by interfering in the democratic process. Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said today: "The Guardian makes clear that the Queen was prepared to take deliberate steps to encourage people to vote No in the referendum. Regardless of how people feel about Scottish independence we should all be alarmed at such a political intervention by a hereditary monarch." "We would normally expect a head of state to take an active interest in such a momentous referendum, but the deal with the monarchy is that the monarch stays quiet and keeps out of these debates." "The real problem is the system. But that doesn't excuse the Queen making her views known in such an underhand way while having her press office insist she is impartial." "We're calling on MPs to censure the Queen for her intervention in the referendum campaign. Of course the Queen is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't - but the bottom line is that the rules are there and the Queen can't pick and choose when to follow them." "This is why our head of state needs to be elected - so if they get it wrong like this they can be held to account."- See more at: http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/parliament-must-censure-queen-over-referendum-interference#sthash.G6LOy826.dpuf Thanks, that's interesting. I used to think that the Queen did a not bad job, given the job description (breed, read autocues, wave, make small talk, sit through state events, do a bit of God, keep schtum on politics, etc) but it seems sadly that she has finally right royally messed up on the last of these. I still think it's best to keep republican question separate from independence, but the queen's role as purring politicians' puppet should not be forgotten when it comes to the vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 I was previously a bit wishy washy on the monarchy and independence... Vote Yes but we can keep the Queen (it was just to keep the old biddies on board (who subsequently mostly all voted No).) Now it is like the currency issue, the fannying about shite. The Queen can get to with all her mutant family of parasite kunts. What kind of assbackward nation has a hereditary head of state anyway. Especially a family who has Jimmy Saville, corpse and child shagger extraordinaire as their best pal. Here you go Jimmy have the master keys to the city's orphanages and hospitals, go find us some fresh meat... Sleekit miserable two faced fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I guess I just got ousted !! To be fair reckon he deserves it more than me dont think Irnbruman got the intention of my post. He''s not the smartest. :wink2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weekevie04 Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 How did we vote no? Everyone I speak to seems to have voted yes or abstained (being no - ''couldnae do it'') or were Nos but switched to yes. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I used to think that the Queen did a not bad job, given the job description (breed, read autocues, wave, make small talk, sit through state events, do a bit of God, keep schtum on politics, etc) but it seems sadly that she has finally right royally messed up on the last of these. She had her say prior to the 79 referendum as well, possibly more so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 How did we vote no? Everyone I speak to seems to have voted yes or abstained (being no - ''couldnae do it'') or were Nos but switched to yes. Hmmm. This. Even the folk I thought most unlikely have said they voted Yes. I suppose it's the great 'Silent Majority' we keep hearing about. Utter phuqqing con. And before the resident north brits tell me I can't accept the result - history will prove it one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 To be fair i know loads of folk that voted No especially from my work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JECK Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Am pretty sure that out of the 25 in my office there was only 3 of us that voted yes. That's Edinburgh for you though. Don't ask me why I still work in the place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 She had her say prior to the 79 referendum as well, possibly more so... True, so they say... They also said 'never again' You could say 1979 was worse as it was a more blatant public interference - but at least it was seen as such, as controversial even unconstitutional This time - if the report is true - it's worse as it involves deceit - pretending to be just a private opinion but cooked up by politicians and lapped up by the media... This time it's not (yet) generally seen as controversial or unconstitutional - it's still possible for papers like the Herald and any others i've seen report in reviews of the year that the Queen asked us to think carefully, but never referring to the alleged 'planted' nature of the comment If the Guardian version is not true, let's hear the denials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 How did we vote no? Everyone I speak to seems to have voted yes or abstained (being no - ''couldnae do it'') or were Nos but switched to yes. Hmmm. I have been wondering about this too. I know of two people who were so adamant they were going to vote No I stopped even discussing the referendum with them. But when it came to it, they both voted Yes. When you hear about things like that it makes you wonder how Yes failed, especially as the polls were so close towards the end. Maybe an equal number of soft Yes voters bottled it on the day, or perhaps more of the 'missing million' voted No than we hoped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde1998 Posted December 27, 2014 Author Share Posted December 27, 2014 I have been wondering about this too. I know of two people who were so adamant they were going to vote No I stopped even discussing the referendum with them. But when it came to it, they both voted Yes. When you hear about things like that it makes you wonder how Yes failed, especially as the polls were so close towards the end. Maybe an equal number of soft Yes voters bottled it on the day, or perhaps more of the 'missing million' voted No than we hoped. The final few polls put yes at around 43%-45% (including undecided voters). It's possible that the split of the "don't knows" meant that the polls could have been accurate. Those who didn't know, voted no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobite Piper Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 To be fair i know loads of folk that voted No especially from my work Where do you work, Ibrox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Where do you work, Ibrox?My office was heavily No and I don't work at Ibrox. A Yes vote would have meant closure, which from a personal point of view would have been three cherries on the fruit machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Where do you work, Ibrox? Civil Service Would estimate about 60-70% (maybe a lot more) of those employed in Government Departments (DWP, Passport Office, DVLA, HMRC, Border Agency etc) voted No despite knowing whats around the corner with Osborne's cuts The majority of staff in these places are women (including a good percentage of the men) and they had absolutely no interest in Independence. So much so that it was downright ignorance in most cases with no care in educating themselves Most are in there for pin money and all are mortgaged up to the eyeballs otherwise they would not be there Honestly folk are kidding themselves on that the No vote wasnt what it was Edited January 2, 2015 by Ally Bongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I would add that this was in spite of the advice of their own Union the PCS, whilst remaining neutral, gave information heavily weighted towards voting Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 How did we vote no? Everyone I speak to seems to have voted yes or abstained (being no - ''couldnae do it'') or were Nos but switched to yes. Hmmm. I am the opposite. I am hard put to think of a yes voter amongst those I regularly see. Guess I am related to and work with more bawbags than yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbruman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Having not long moved to Newcastle and renting a flat there, it struck me just how man y previous residents of the flat that there was mail for. Now considering the high percentage of no s in the postal vote, I wouldn't be surprised if any govt organisation was involved in checking how many people were on the electoral roll and didn't live at the address any more and said organisation could then use these postal votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartandon Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Quite a few no voters at my work. None of them (and I do mean none of them) wanted to enter into any discussion or do any research about it. They fell into 2 categories - bloody well off, with an "I'm alright, Jack" - stereotypical Rangers fan who loves the monarchy and all things British Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.