NationStates Jolt Archive

Just heard on the news that a threat to the Queen has been posted on an Islamic jihadist Website! Apparently, these asshats will stoop to anything that gains them notoriety or which will incite their followers. :mad:

fantastic news isnt it , :) heres hoping they can take the whole bloody family out in one go

fantastic news isnt it , :) heres hoping they can take the whole bloody family out in one go
amen.

fantastic news isnt it , :) heres hoping they can take the whole bloody family out in one go
WTF, over??? :eek:

WTF, over??? :eek:


what do you mean by that ?

fantastic news isnt it , :) heres hoping they can take the whole bloody family out in one go
struggles: That's not nice...

these asshats will stoop to anything that gains them notoriety or which will incite their followers.
meh just ignore them so long as they're only threatening why bother getting angry over it.

This news should inspire no more concern, anger, or condemnation than if al-Qaeda had threatened the life of any other person. There's nothing special about a royal, who by definition has attained undue attention, admiration, and status merely because of the accident of being fortunate enough to be born or marry into a particular family.

This news should inspire no more concern, anger, or condemnation than if al-Qaeda had threatened the life of any other person. There's nothing special about a royal, who by definition has attained undue attention, admiration, and status merely because of the accident of being fortunate enough to be born or marry into a particular family.
I completely agree.

This news should inspire no more concern, anger, or condemnation than if al-Qaeda had threatened the life of any other person. There's nothing special about a royal, who by definition has attained undue attention, admiration, and status merely because of the accident of being fortunate enough to be born or marry into a particular family.
double amen :)

This news should inspire no more concern, anger, or condemnation than if al-Qaeda had threatened the life of any other person. There's nothing special about a royal, who by definition has attained undue attention, admiration, and status merely because of the accident of being fortunate enough to be born or marry into a particular family.
As with Pure and the rest, who actually gives two shoits about the queen other than Daily Express readers? britian shoud ditch the monachy.

As with Pure and the rest, who actually gives two shoits about the queen other than Daily Express readers?
daily mail readers? :p

Oh, noes! Anyone but the oh-so-special and more-equal-than-thou Queen! :rolleyes:

not quite the reaction he expected I think.:p

not quite the reaction he expected I think.:p

Hmm, they do seem to forget that we don't particularly worship our monarchs or leaders any more.

Given that a nut in a batman costume and a cross-dresser impersonating OBL himself have infiltrated Buckingham Palace it's not going to be a shock...

Given that a nut in a batman costume and a cross-dresser impersonating OBL himself have infiltrated Buckingham Palace it's not going to be a shock...

... or a significant loss.

... or a significant loss.

Goes without saying. She shits and pisses along with the rest of us.

Goes without saying. She shits and pisses along with the rest of us.

Gives a whole new perspective to the throne.

Gives a whole new perspective to the throne.
excuse me I have to go to the throne room.:p

Oh noes, now she's a security risk. Looks like they'll have to get rid of her. :p

Gives a whole new perspective to the throne.

The real reason to play Warhammer 40k, the Emperor is stuck on the Golden Throne...

While I wouldn't condone killing the royal family, I'd have to generally agree with the republican (in the non-American sense of the word) sentiments expressed in this thread. It would be interesting to do a poll of Brits here to find out what they think of the monarchy (and include a set of options for non-Brits so they can express their opinions too).

They better not attack our Royal Family.:mad:

While I wouldn't condone killing the royal family, I'd have to generally agree with the republican (in the non-American sense of the word) sentiments expressed in this thread. It would be interesting to do a poll of Brits here to find out what they think of the monarchy (and include a set of options for non-Brits so they can express their opinions too).
then make it!

They better not attack our Royal Family:mad:
who's that?:confused:

then make it!
I can't - for some reason I can't get the Jolt 'Thread Tools' menu (or 'Search' for that matter) to work any more (and it's not a browser problem - I tried it in Internet Explorer as well). Obviously something strange is happening to the data on the way to my computer.

They better not attack our Royal Family.:mad:

Though I'm not a Brit, if the royal family gets attacked, I can almost guarantee that the people will become outraged. One thing I learned about Britian is tradition.

People may moan about the queen but if she gets attacked, Britian will be enraged and it is never good to piss off the brits.

Just heard on the news that a threat to the Queen has been posted on an Islamic jihadist Website! Apparently, these asshats will stoop to anything that gains them notoriety or which will incite their followers. :mad:
An American giving a damn about the British monarchy? Now I've heard everything.

My thoughts can be summed up as meh.

People may moan about the queen but if she gets attacked, Britian will be enraged and it is never good to piss off the brits.
That's what I thought too. :(

An American giving a damn about the British monarchy? Now I've heard everything.

My thoughts can be summed up as meh.
Which nicely sums up my own thoughts about your posts too ... meh! :p

Though I'm not a Brit, if the royal family gets attacked, I can almost guarantee that the people will become outraged. One thing I learned about Britian is tradition.

People may moan about the queen but if she gets attacked, Britian will be enraged and it is never good to piss off the brits.
Yeah but they wont have one nation giving their full support like tthey used too.

personally i'm a republican (of the oliver cromwell rather then george dubba school of thought (if for bush it can be called that))

if they get blown up then all to the good

means we don't have to get the axes dirty again (they take forever to clean :rolleyes:)

and what would happen if you anger britain?

maybe we'll use our gift for black humour and biting sarcasam until they scream and cry mother...........

and just for the record i'm welsh (part of britain for those of you who don't know the geography of our proud and vagely soggy land)

An American giving a damn about the British monarchy? Now I've heard everything.

My thoughts can be summed up as meh.

I'm not a big fan of any monarchies. More so monarchies that have nothing more than a ceremonial purpose. I mean, if they're going to keep the monarchy around, at least give it some fricken power. Which we all know isn't going to happen, since the only way that could happen would be if the Monarch themself called to overthrow the democratic process (which wouldn't happen anyways, since everyone would just think the monarch is crazy), and the heir to the throne thinks that global warming is the greatest problem facing the world. Never mind world hunger, or avian flu, or the fact that Africa is dirt-poor; we need to worry about how it's going to get 2 degrees hotter in 100 years. And things aren't much better down the list; another heir dressed up like a Nazi...

Anyhoo, back on topic: So what if AQ threatens the Queen? It's not like they'll actually do anything.

Do you think they could be persuaded to just blow up Charles and Camilla?

Do we really want our future king to be a man who talks to plants and says he wants to be reincarnated as a tampon?

Seriously though, if they did attack the queen the English would be outraged, just because we don't like our monarchy doesn't give Johnny Foreigner a right to.:mad:

As long as they take out Prince Philip.

That man is an embarrasment.

Cool. If they are concentrating targetting a single someone with a load of security around to make it difficult, they'll have less time/resources to plan attacking large groups of unguarded people.

And if she dies...meh. She's had a good innings, and it's not as if anyone can feel sorry for a person born into luxury and living better than millions who actually have to work for their money.

fantastic news isnt it , :) heres hoping they can take the whole bloody family out in one go

Is anyone else feeling the urge to shoot this guy in the face?

Or are you planning to make it more painful for him?

I'm no fan of the monarchy, but I like terrorists much less.

SHe's like a mascot! It's like the terrorists threatening to blow up Mickey Mouse! It just isn't right. :(

God save the Queen.

In all seriousness.

What I think many might have missed here is what the Royalty represents. Yes, they're the same as us, and I'm not a huge fan, mostly due to the actions of Philip and Harry (I find Charles eccentric and harmlessly funny), but they are a symbol of this country. Just like the Twin Towers were, or the Red Bus in London is....its just a symbol made of flesh and blood this time, not one made of steel and concrete.

Oh....and why would AQ announce a target before an attack? Strikes me as a little daft....or have they done that before?

Oh....and why would AQ announce a target before an attack? Strikes me as a little daft....or have they done that before?

Well........they have announced that they will make an attack before, and they have given a hint to where. But theyve never made it this direct.

SHe's like a mascot! It's like the terrorists threatening to blow up Mickey Mouse! It just isn't right. :(

That is a good point. It is an insult to Britain to attack the queen. And such insults should not be taken lightly.

SHe's like a mascot! It's like the terrorists threatening to blow up Mickey Mouse! It just isn't right. :(

I hate Micket Mouse.

Why don't they just let the monarchy die off? Like get some Monarch to abolish the Monarchy. If I found out I was heir to the throne of some country, I'd accept, become Monarch, then dissolve the Monarchy. That simple.

This news should inspire no more concern, anger, or condemnation than if al-Qaeda had threatened the life of any other person. There's nothing special about a royal, who by definition has attained undue attention, admiration, and status merely because of the accident of being fortunate enough to be born or marry into a particular family.

On the contrary, simply the amount of money spent on their security means there would be an outcry if anyone managed to harm them.

Is anyone else feeling the urge to shoot this guy in the face?

Or are you planning to make it more painful for him?
you shoot him, i shoot you.

hmm so this is how civil wars start :P

When people think of Britain, they think of the Queen. They think of dignity, tradition, history. What would you rather they thought of? Tea and (for some reason I've never had explained) poor dental care?

She is my Queen, in the possessive sense. I am the country, and she was born into my service. Do not envy her her birth, for she is more a subject of the state than any of us.

When people think of Britain, they think of the Queen. They think of dignity, tradition, history. What would you rather they thought of? Tea and (for some reason I've never had explained) poor dental care?

She is my Queen, in the possessive sense. I am the country, and she was born into my service. Do not envy her her birth, for she is more a subject of the state than any of us.

When I think of Britain I think of bad cooking, Fish and chips, tea, BBCWorld, and a shit-load of problems caused by their Colonial ideas ("Let's let India and Pakistan divide up the Princely States by themselves!")

The Queen doesn't come up until someone says "What about the Queen?"

Maybe Southern Ireland will make the mistake of joining forces with the middle eastern wackos to fight England.

Then we could invade Southern Ireland and deliver it back to the UK. :)

you shoot him, i shoot you.

hmm so this is how civil wars start :P

Didn't you know that?

I'm a professional at it I must say :p

Maybe Southern Ireland will make the mistake of joining forces with the middle eastern wackos to fight England.

Then we could invade Southern Ireland and deliver it back to the UK. :)

I like you :)

I like you :)

I don't.

*turns to New Granada*

I'm bigger than you, I'm higher on the food chain! Get in ma belly!

Maybe Southern Ireland will make the mistake of joining forces with the middle eastern wackos to fight England.

Then we could invade Southern Ireland and deliver it back to the UK. :)

*devilish laugh*

I dont know whether anybody's said this but the Queen isn't HRH, she's HM.
HER bloody MAJESTY

also... wooooo! 1000th post!

When people think of Britain, they think of the Queen. They think of dignity, tradition, history. What would you rather they thought of? Tea and (for some reason I've never had explained) poor dental care?

She is my Queen, in the possessive sense. I am the country, and she was born into my service. Do not envy her her birth, for she is more a subject of the state than any of us.

Thats true. Bless her.

Though I'm not a Brit, if the royal family gets attacked, I can almost guarantee that the people will become outraged. One thing I learned about Britian is tradition.

People may moan about the queen but if she gets attacked, Britian will be enraged and it is never good to piss off the brits.


76% of Scotland would abolish the monarchy given the chance tomorrow, why would we moan,

76% of Scotland would abolish the monarchy given the chance tomorrow, why would we moan,

I think that when it comes to tradition, the people will be very pissed if someone attacked the royal family.

if they want to get the Queen they will have to get passed this we....muscular 15 year old to the bus stop my army of greasy computer addicts! (we will have to hitch a ride though I'm broke)

I think that when it comes to tradition, the people will be very pissed if someone attacked the royal family.


i dont see why people will get pissed, maybe in england but not scotland it removes a point of disgust in the mind of a large part of the population which we have no legal way of removing

76% of Scotland would abolish the monarchy given the chance tomorrow, why would we moan,


If scotland wont get over the magnificent EDWARDVS PRIMVS SCOTTORVM MALLEVS after 700 years, of their own volition, perhaps its time to force them to reconcile. :)

If scotland wont get over the magnificent EDWARDVS PRIMVS SCOTTORVM MALLEVS after 700 years, of their own volition, perhaps its time to force them to reconcile. :)


or perhaps its time for the undemocratic westminster government and its attatched monarch to get the hell out of OUR COUNTRY

or perhaps its time for the undemocratic westminster government and its attatched monarch to get the hell out of OUR COUNTRY

Fight for you freedom like the US did :D

Fight for you freedom like the US did :D

we have

God save the Queen! because nobody else will...:headbang:

we have

And lost. Accept it puny Scotsman, begone back to cheering the side facing England in football matches in pubs for your entertainment, it amuses us that you have to define yourselves through such acts. ;)

or perhaps its time for the undemocratic westminster government and its attatched monarch to get the hell out of OUR COUNTRY


Perhaps its time for a new Hammer of the Scots.

Country? Does scotland have its own passport?

Where is the Scottish embassy to the US, who is the scottish ambassador to the UN?

Fight for you freedom like the US did :D


That would be suicide for them.

Maybe Southern Ireland will make the mistake of joining forces with the middle eastern wackos to fight England.

Then we could invade Southern Ireland and deliver it back to the UK. :)
yeah:headbang: Even with you not being 100% serious that's ignorant and quite annoying.

OK, let's get things straight: the correct term of address for the Queen is HM, not HRH - sorry, that REALLY bugs me.

And it is the Al-Qaeda "number 2" al Zawahri that has branded the Queen as an enemy of Islam. I never heard about her name being posted on a Jihadist website, but it probably is, along with the name of every other Head of State in the western hemisphere I would imagine - how did you?

And just becasue She has been branded as such does NOT mean that She is a potential target - it simply means that a bunch of scattered, idealistic but nonetheless fanatical terrorists can find no-one else to blame, so they choose a harmless 79 year old woman. Shocking.

And this...

or perhaps its time for the undemocratic westminster government and its attatched monarch to get the hell out of OUR COUNTRY

(Presuming that you are Scottish?)
I don't quite understand how Westminster is undemocratic. Does it not consist of popularly elected members from the equal constituencies of this country?
And it's attached monarch is actually a Scottish Queen on the English throne,
and since 1707, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have officially been one country, fixed in a Union that existed de facto from 1603. It is not only incorrect to name it as YOUR COUNTRY, as England isn't mine - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is - it is indicative of your ignorance of the political system of the United Kingdom. Scotland has not been dominated in any way, and holds no precedence - and has no precedence held above it - over any other division in the Union.

yeah:headbang: Even with you not being 100% serious that's ignorant and quite annoying.


Ignorant?
Of what?

(Presuming that you are Scottish?)
I don't quite understand how Westminster is undemocratic. Does it not consist of popularly elected members from the equal constituencies of this country?
And it's attached monarch is actually a Scottish Queen on the English throne,
and since 1707, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have officially been one country, fixed in a Union that existed de facto from 1603. It is not only incorrect to name it as YOUR COUNTRY, as England isn't mine - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is - it is indicative of your ignorance of the political system of the United Kingdom. Scotland has not been dominated in any way, and holds no precedence - and has no precedence held above it - over any other division in the Union.

few incorrect points, the union was by crown only until 1703 then it became a legal union, if you cant see how a unelected house of lords is undemocratic then jesus something is wrong in your head

also i didnt call it my country, i used the communal Our

we have

Oh really? When did that happen? There must be a huge chunk of the history of my own country that I'm missing out on.

When was this proposed secession?

The only thing I can think of it possibly being was the Jacobite rebellions - but that was to remove the German King George I and II, and install...
...wait a minute...
...a SCOTTISH King!

But that little episode ended in 1745, which was a VERY long time ago.

You're surely not talking about William Wallace are you? Back then Scotland was a separate country.

Perhaps its time for a new Hammer of the Scots.

Country? Does scotland have its own passport?

Where is the Scottish embassy to the US, who is the scottish ambassador to the UN?


Scotland could( if it wasnt ran by pussies in tonys boxers) declare itself independent tomorrow, but it is a seperate country, we have entirely seperate legal system from the english, different economies, cultures , history

Ignorant?
Of what?
Maybe Southern Ireland will make the mistake of joining forces with the middle eastern wackos to fight England.

Then we could invade Southern Ireland and deliver it back to the UK.
1. That The republic of Ireland a democratic pacifist nation would attack anyone.
2. that we would side with terrorists AND no the government never supported the IRA
3. that we want to invade England or kill the Queen. We don't care about the Queen.

If you want to invade us bring it bitch you couldn't even beat the IRA and they didn't have popular support. Iraqis they're amateurs wasting human resources on suicide bombings bah.
(PS I don't support the IRA only crazy people do)

Oh really? When did that happen? There must be a huge chunk of the history of my own country that I'm missing out on.

When was this proposed secession?

The only thing I can think of it possibly being was the Jacobite rebellions - but that was to remove the German King George I and II, and install...
...wait a minute...
...a SCOTTISH King!

But that little episode ended in 1745, which was a VERY long time ago.

You're surely not talking about William Wallace are you? Back then Scotland was a separate country.


a seperate country which had been invaded and effictively taken over by England thanks to the Balliol claim

1. That The republic of Ireland a democratic pacifist nation would attack anyone.
2. that we would side with terrorists AND no the government never supported the IRA
3. that we want to invade England or kill the Queen. We don't care about the Queen.

If you want to invade us bring it bitch you couldn't even beat the IRA and they didn't have popular support. Iraqis they're amateurs wasting human resources on suicide bombings bah.
(PS I don't support the IRA only crazy people do)


I think you missed the word "maybe."

Scotland could( if it wasnt ran by pussies in tonys boxers) declare itself independent tomorrow, but it is a seperate country, we have entirely seperate legal system from the english, different economies, cultures , history


It could, if it wanted a repeat of old ER the I.

few incorrect points, the union was by crown only until 1703 then it became a legal union, if you cant see how a unelected house of lords is undemocratic then jesus something is wrong in your head

Firstly, please do not presume to tell me that there is something wrong with my head. I can tell you now that it is fine.

And secondly, yes, the House of Lords is an unelected body, but has no input into the construction of legislature - only whether or not it shall become Law.
But remember, that now, following the recent reforms of the House of Lords, the House is comprised mainly of former Prime Ministers, as well as many that have performed an exceptional duty to this country. Most of the hereditary Peers were scrapped from the House. The majority are now Life Peers.

I suppose there are the Bishops...
But they serve by virtue of their religious authority and as the spiritual leaders of the House.

And the Act of Union 1707 was given Royal Assent by HM Queen Anne in AD 1707.

also i didnt call it my country, i used the communal Our

Even so, that indicated that you felt it belongs to you, amongst other, unidentified persons.

Firstly, please do not presume to tell me that there is something wrong with my head. I can tell you now that it is fine.

And secondly, yes, the House of Lords is an unelected body, but has no input into the construction of legislature - only whether or not it shall become Law.
But remember, that now, following the recent reforms of the House of Lords, the House is comprised mainly of former Prime Ministers, as well as many that have performed an exceptional duty to this country. Most of the hereditary Peers were scrapped from the House. The majority are now Life Peers.

I suppose there are the Bishops...
But they serve by virtue of their religious authority and as the spiritual leaders of the House.



and as you said your mind being fine surely cannot accept this in a supposedly democratic society

I think you missed the word "maybe."
No I didn't there's no maybe about it not one single member of parlimint or senate in Ireland would support either an alliance with islamic extremists, a war with britain or assination of their Queen.

Even so, that indicated that you felt it belongs to you, amongst other, unidentified persons.


why not everyone swallowed it when the Jews came crying about Israel, if it belongs to them even though they left it for more than 2000 years, why cant the scots whove lived there since 700's not say its their country

If Scotland declared itself independent, England, Wales and Northen Ireland would be a lot better off. So much of the money we get from the EU goes to Scotland because it needs developing.

a seperate country which had been invaded and effictively taken over by England thanks to the Balliol claim

Correct, but then the Scottish people could not have petitioned for Secession from the Union as it did not exist.
It was a separate country with separate leadership, which is not what we are discussing here - we are discussing Scottish secession from the Union.
Please, stay focused.

and as you said your mind being fine surely cannot accept this in a supposedly democratic society

The unelected House of Lords is the not a major impediment to democracy in the UK. Surely it's more worrying that at the last election, Labour got 35% of the popular vote, but ended up with a 66 majority of seats.

If Scotland declared itself independent, England, Wales and Northen Ireland would be a lot better off. So much of the money we get from the EU goes to Scotland because it needs developing.


yeah but we wouldnt it because our gas and oil money would actually get spent here rather than paying whitehalls admin costs

and as you said your mind being fine surely cannot accept this in a supposedly democratic society

To reiterate - The House of Lords is simply a ratificational body. It has no involvement in the construction of Laws. That is left to popularly elected members from the House of Commons.

If you don't like it, why don't you write to your MP? You know, the one that was elected?

Or perhaps the Queen? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, you don't like her, do you?

Correct, but then the Scottish people could not have petitioned for Secession from the Union as it did not exist.
It was a separate country with separate leadership, which is not what we are discussing here - we are discussing Scottish secession from the Union.
Please, stay focused.


i never once said i was speaking about secession form the union, i have been speaking from the begining about the scots becoming a free and independent nation, do not assume what i am talking about

yeah but we wouldnt it because our gas and oil money would actually get spent here rather than paying whitehalls admin costs

Considering the fiasco over the construction of the Scottish Parliament, I find it rather rich that a Scot could think that their administration would be any more efficient as an independent nation.

The oil and gas is almost gone. Apart from that, what has Scotland's economy got going for it? Tartan and shortbread can only be developed so far...

yeah but we wouldnt it because our gas and oil money would actually get spent here rather than paying whitehalls admin costs

WHAT???

You should really think about explaining your points a little better. That way, people may be able to offer a decent response.

And punctuation and grammar!

To reiterate - The House of Lords is simply a ratificational body. It has no involvement in the construction of Laws. That is left to popularly elected members from the House of Commons.

If you don't like it, why don't you write to your MP? You know, the one that was elected?

Or perhaps the Queen? Ph, I'm sorry, I forgot, you don't like her, do you?

no matter how many times people say it has no law making power, it wont change the fact the house of lords is undemocratic

wouldnt waste my time on Westminster pointless excercise, i prefer to go through democratic parliaments

i never once said i was speaking about secession form the union, i have been speaking from the begining about the scots becoming a free and independent nation, do not assume what i am talking about

Well, unless Scotland does secede from the Union, it won't be a free and independent nation.

wouldnt waste my time on Westminster pointless excercise, i prefer to go through democratic parliaments

Yeah, the evil English parliament is OBVIOUSLY undemocratic because the SNP doesn't control all seats, even the ones in England. The Scottish one on the other hand is the most perfect democracy devised since time began, because the Scots are just plain superiour, racially, right?

Well, unless Scotland does secede from the Union, it won't be a free and independent nation.


and until we dont have pussies in westminsters pocket running Holyrood it wont

next election is due in 2007 and S.N.P are expected to win largely

no matter how many times people say it has no law making power, it wont change the fact the house of lords is undemocratic

wouldnt waste my time on Westminster pointless excercise, i prefer to go through democratic parliaments

Well, if you want to change anything about the government of this country - that would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern ireland - Westminster is the government you will have to deal with.

ACCEPT IT, and be thankful that you have at least the right to vote to elect your own lawmakers; and the many civil liberties and political freedoms that are afforded to you.

Yeah, the evil English parliament is OBVIOUSLY undemocratic because the SNP doesn't control all seats, even the ones in England. The Scottish one on the other hand is the most perfect democracy devised since time began, because the Scots are just plain superiour, racially, right?

no however the scottish parliament is more democratic than wesminster in. accept it

we use the more democratic PR system and we dont have any unelected house

and until we dont have pussies in westminsters pocket running Holyrood it wont

next election is due in 2007 and S.N.P are expected to win largely

On what is an independent Scotland's economy supposed to be based? Hosting the caber-tossing world championships?

Yeah, the evil English parliament is OBVIOUSLY undemocratic because the SNP doesn't control all seats, even the ones in England. The Scottish one on the other hand is the most perfect democracy devised since time began, because the Scots are just plain superiour, racially, right?

Bravo. I'd invite you round for tea...
but this is the internet...
and I don't like tea. How very un-British of me.
*waves flag*

and until we dont have pussies in westminsters pocket running Holyrood it wont

next election is due in 2007 and S.N.P are expected to win largely

What are you on about? Please, post coherently and so that we all understand the point you are trying to make.

On what is an independent Scotland's economy supposed to be based? Hosting the caber-tossing world championships?

the same as norway, siphon part of our oil and gas profits into a trust and use the rest, amongst our many other industries

why does scotland have the lowest unemployment rate in the uk if its so shit

and until we dont have pussies in westminsters pocket running Holyrood it wont

next election is due in 2007 and S.N.P are expected to win largely

Pfft, the SNP are a joke - almost as bad as the BNP in my view. A bunch of nationalists who see physical abuse of English "immigrants" as mere banter and constantly harp on about the very few battles the Scottish won against England, forgetting battles like Flodden and Nevilles Cross where they were humiliated. Hopefully they will get in though - it would be a burden released from the rest of Britain.

no however the scottish parliament is more democratic than wesminster in. accept it

we use the more democratic PR system and we dont have any unelected house

But, at the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament isn't the government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Westminster IS.

And what is PR? Public Relations?

the same as norway, siphon part of our oil and gas profits into a trust and use the rest, amongst our many other industries

why does scotland have the lowest unemployment rate in the uk if its so shit

Simply because the government creates them, mostly because it is dependent on Scottish MPs for its support. The shipyards on the Clyde are subsidised by Government contracts, as is Scottish public transport and utilities. Also, think how many non-jobs devolution will create...All helps to make the figures look good.

The oil and gas is almost gone, there are few profits left to siphon!

But, at the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament isn't the government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Westminster IS.

And what is PR? Public Relations?


i never said holyrood was the government of the uk my point little india is tht holyrood is more democratic than westminster which in my view is important in a democratic society

taken from Politics for idiots***
PR= proportional representation

the same as norway, siphon part of our oil and gas profits into a trust and use the rest, amongst our many other industries

why does scotland have the lowest unemployment rate in the uk if its so shit

You really have no idea about economics, do you?

For a start, the world's gas reserves WILL expire in our lifetimes, and there isn't much oil left either.

Not really a bright economic future for the Republic of Scotland, is it Laenis?

i never said holyrood was the government of the uk my point little india is tht holyrood is more democratic than westminster which in my view is important in a democratic society

taken from Politics for idiots***
PR= proportional representation

It'd be nice if you tried to respond to my economic points, but never mind...

PR is such a great system, it brought Hitler to power. Whoop de doo :rolleyes:

It'd be nice if you tried to respond to my economic points, but never mind...

PR is such a great system, it brought Hitler to power. Whoop de doo :rolleyes:

Laenis and Maelog, you are both cordially invited for a cup of cyber tea - or coffee, which ever you prefer. I do hope you will come.

There, we can discuss the disastrous future in store for the Republic of Scotland's economy - oh, and every other aspect of it's independence as well.

Hope to see you there.

Best wishes,

Little India

Not really a bright economic future for the Republic of Scotland, is it Laenis?

Poor Scotland. It's a pity really, a lot of people there aren't just moronic anti English. My grandfather was Scottish and he thought it was petty and gave Scotland a bad image. After all, all of Scotlands great achievements would have only come about as a result of the Union - they should be proud to be British.

i never said holyrood was the government of the uk my point little india is tht holyrood is more democratic than westminster which in my view is important in a democratic society

taken from Politics for idiots***
PR= proportional representation

Referring to the bold type:

So, basically, you want a government that is more democratic than the one currently in power, but you feel it is important in a democratic society to have more democracy. What are you going to do, keep asking for more and more political freedom and democratic allowances that there is a referendum for every piece of legislation?

My, oh my, the Scottish Republic does sound fun.

Laenis and Maelog, you are both cordially invited for a cup of cyber tea - or coffee, which ever you prefer. I do hope you will come.

There, we can discuss the disastrous future in store for the Republic of Scotland's economy - oh, and every other aspect of it's independence as well.

Hope to see you there.

Best wishes,

Little India

I humbly accept your invitation!

If Scotland were to become indendent, how would Scots define themselves... After all, they certainly couldn't claim to be under foreign occupation any more... so what is left... Kilts and Celtic rock?

I humbly accept your invitation!

If Scotland were to become indendent, how would Scots define themselves... After all, they certainly couldn't claim to be under foreign occupation any more... so what is left... Kilts and Celtic rock?

Oh, fabulous, we'll have a tea party.

I suppose, the Scottish tourist industry does have the Kilts and Celtic rock - might add... 50 Scottish pence a year onto their tourist industry?

Oh, fabulous, we'll have a tea party.

I suppose, the Scottish tourist industry does have the Kilts and Celtic rock - might add... 50 Scottish pence a year onto their tourist industry?

Fantastic! I'll bring the cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off.

Little India, I think your being a little harsh... Perhaps 75p? And of course, you'd have to convert that into the new Scottish currency... which the "independence" favouring SNP would like to be the Euro.

I'm not the first to ask, but why are nationalists always such dreadful hypocrites? They're almost as bad as champagne socialists.

[QUOTE=Little India]What are you going to do, keep asking for more and more political freedom and democratic allowances that there is a referendum for every piece of legislation?[QUOTE]

Sounds like a place I'd like to call the Left Coast: ala California. Their political system is so jacked up...they can't have laws unless their passed by a majority of the voting population of the state.

And its so big that they're talking about splitting it in two.

No I didn't there's no maybe about it not one single member of parlimint or senate in Ireland would support either an alliance with islamic extremists, a war with britain or assination of their Queen.

You cannot possibly know that.

At any rate, I can still fantasize. :)

I'm going to have a kilt made out of flags-of-St-George for when I go to scotland.

I'm going to have a kilt made out of flags-of-St-George for when I go to scotland.

Good idea, I'm sure it'll go down like an "I love Oliver Cromwell" T-shirt in Ireland. Speaking of Ireland, why has never anyone suggested that we give back Fermanagh and Tyrone to solve the problem? After all, those are the only strongly nationalist areas of Northern Ireland...

Good idea, I'm sure it'll go down like an "I love Oliver Cromwell" T-shirt in Ireland. Speaking of Ireland, why has never anyone suggested that we give back Fermanagh and Tyrone to solve the problem? After all, those are the only strongly nationalist areas of Northern Ireland...


Its bad enough that the southern part was given up. The error shouldnt be expanded, it should be rectified.

And, in addition to the kilt, I'm going to have Edward the First monograms (E [little I] R) on everything else.

I'm hoping a very nationalist english tailor will give me a discount making them :)

Maybe Anderson and Sheppard hate the scots. ;)

Sounds like a place I'd like to call the Left Coast: ala California. Their political system is so jacked up...they can't have laws unless their passed by a majority of the voting population of the state.


That's a bad thing? News to me...

A threat to the Queen is a threat to constitutional government for 15 countries.

In any case, Germans bombing Buck House, thinking they would demoralise the British, only united them. A threat to the Royals will profit these animals nothing.

AQ threatens old rich lady.
Hihihihihihi!

I'm going to have a kilt made out of flags-of-St-George for when I go to scotland.

People have being beaten for less in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,209897,00.html

Oh, and here's a source you couldn't accuse of being "Evil English Media" http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=434

People have being killed for less in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,209897,00.html


Barbaric.

I, for one, would welcome scottish independence. They, and their socialism, can just fuck off, and stop being a drag on the rest of the kingdom.

I would also put a fence up along the border, and deport all scots from england.

I would also put a fence up along the border, and deport all scots from england.
You won't even have to build a new one, you can just fix the holes!

It wouldnt be a fence that would be necessary, it would be an invasion.

It wouldnt be a fence that would be necessary, it would be an invasion.

Absolutley not. The long suffering people of England have supported the workshy booze soaked scots for over four hundred years now. Enough is enough. I say cut them off without a sous and seal the borders.

Within ten years scotland will be poorer than a failed african dictatorship.

Oh, noes! Anyone but the oh-so-special and more-equal-than-thou Queen! :rolleyes:

Yeah, because if they take our queen, we'll be able to break their defenses until we get a pawn over to their side!:rolleyes:

SHe's like a mascot! It's like the terrorists threatening to blow up Mickey Mouse! It just isn't right. :(
Walt Disney was a Nazi...

The thing is Al Queerdo was saying she is the Organiser of the 'Crusade'
I say BS to that, that lousy Blair and that evil Parliment have taken away her Kingdom i say Divine Right Dammit!

I, for one, would welcome scottish independence. They, and their socialism, can just fuck off, and stop being a drag on the rest of the kingdom.

I would also put a fence up along the border, and deport all scots from england.thier socialism? ...Interesting

I, for one, would welcome scottish independence. They, and their socialism, can just fuck off, and stop being a drag on the rest of the kingdom.

I would also put a fence up along the border, and deport all scots from england.
Hell, why stop at that, why don't you just chop off everything below yorkshire? Then we can be rid of you southern pansys?

PR is such a great system, it brought Hitler to power. Whoop de doo :rolleyes:

Whats your point? PR is fairer than FPTP.


]Just heard on the news that a threat to the Queen has been posted on an Islamic jihadist Website! Apparently, these asshats will stoop to anything that gains them notoriety or which will incite their followers.

Whoooo... sooo scared.... :rolleyes:

Puh-lease. The IRA have been using that talk for about 40 years. Way to jump on the bandwagon a little late Osama....

It'd be nice if you tried to respond to my economic points, but never mind...

PR is such a great system, it brought Hitler to power. Whoop de doo :rolleyes:


actually youll find PR prevented hitler gaining power

had germany used FPTP system hitler would have been in power july 1932,

mate

Speaking of Ireland, why has never anyone suggested that we give back Fermanagh and Tyrone to solve the problem? After all, those are the only strongly nationalist areas of Northern Ireland...

You have obviously never set foot in West Belfast.

You have obviously never set foot in West Belfast.
or 'Bandit Country'.... or Derry...

the majority of british citizens support the monarchy , it is cheaper than a president and has greater cultural and heritage significance. The ridiculous claims of abolishing it mainly come from radical left people who feel the world owes them something and how if we all had the same amount of money, land wealth etc the world's problems would be solved. This is an obviously ridiculous assumption. The Queen and house of Lords are the last safeguards of the democratic process, they alone can help prevent radical and extremist policies becoming law. This is why the forcing of bills through the House of Lords is illegal and undemocratic.

Just a note, i dont intend on changing my views so any arrgument against this shall be ignored

or 'Bandit Country'.... or Derry...

Yeah, I could have gone on, but I felt one counter-example was sufficient.

* says he as he writes this just off the Lower Ormeau *

Yeah, I could have gone on, but I felt one counter-example was sufficient.

* says he as he writes this just off the Lower Ormeau *
:D One was plenty.

Just wanted to see would anyone ask "What the hell is 'Bandit Country'?" Or the whole Derry/Londonderry malarky. :D
:p

it is cheaper than a president


How exactly?

I, for one, would welcome scottish independence. They, and their socialism, can just fuck off, and stop being a drag on the rest of the kingdom.

I would also put a fence up along the border, and deport all scots from england.

This must qualify as a troll right?

You wouldn't have any government left for a kick off. And that nice Mr Cameron must have a bit of Scots blood in him. Given that the Welsh are predominantly Socialist as well, that does for your Mr Davis too.

In the fields of business as well, you'd be reducing your talent base pretty badly. Face it my Anglo Saxon chum, your country benfits from the Union as much as Scotland does. Perhaps primarily from the relative levels of education and intelligence, but none the less.....
We'll have a few of your footballers mind....:fluffle:

the majority of british citizens support the monarchy , it is cheaper than a president and has greater cultural and heritage significance. The ridiculous claims of abolishing it mainly come from radical left people who feel the world owes them something and how if we all had the same amount of money, land wealth etc the world's problems would be solved. This is an obviously ridiculous assumption. The Queen and house of Lords are the last safeguards of the democratic process, they alone can help prevent radical and extremist policies becoming law. This is why the forcing of bills through the House of Lords is illegal and undemocratic.

Just a note, i dont intend on changing my views so any arrgument against this shall be ignored

Marvellous: I sincerely hope that you will join Maelog, Laenis and myself for our tea party.

I entirely agree: not wanting to mention any names, but certain members of this thread simply do not realise the political importance and cultural significance of the House of Lords and the Queen, and are merely showing their utter ignorance of British politics and the Westminster government system.

Marvellous: I sincerely hope that you will join Maelog, Laenis and myself for our tea party.

I entirely agree: not wanting to mention any names, but certain members of this thread simply do not realise the political importance and cultural significance of the House of Lords and the Queen, and are merely showing their utter ignorance of British politics and the Westminster government system.

*applauds*

Well stated. Well stated indeed.

:D One was plenty.

Just wanted to see would anyone ask "What the hell is 'Bandit Country'?" Or the whole Derry/Londonderry malarky. :D
:p

We obviously couldn't give back North Belfast or Derry.. but if Fermanagh and Tyrone were returned, there would once again be a strong unionist majority in Northern Ireland.

I think Ian Paisley should come to the tea party as well, he's quite a character :D

fantastic news isnt it , :) heres hoping they can take the whole bloody family out in one go

what?! do you want to immortalize the queen?

How exactly?

it is believed that the cost of an elected head of state in britain, a president, would cost more than the current monarch does.

We obviously couldn't give back North Belfast or Derry.. but if Fermanagh and Tyrone were returned, there would once again be a strong unionist majority in Northern Ireland.

I think Ian Paisley should come to the tea party as well, he's quite a character :D

Sorry, I lost Rev. Paisley's number - I recently had a clear out. ;)

what?! do you want to immortalize the queen?

She already has been immortalised, as she will be remebered as the Queen who saw Britain through from the end of Empire to the 21st century.

it is believed that the cost of an elected head of state in britain, a president, would cost more than the current monarch does.

It's not necessarly the maintenance of the President, more the costs of providing a currently unecessary written constitution, changing the entire legal system, the armed forces, local government titles, etc. etc. etc. etc.

All this so we could elect someone. Like George Bush.:rolleyes:

Nah. Pragmatic conservatism in this case. With a very small c.

Marvellous: I sincerely hope that you will join Maelog, Laenis and myself for our tea party.

I entirely agree: not wanting to mention any names, but certain members of this thread simply do not realise the political importance and cultural significance of the House of Lords and the Queen, and are merely showing their utter ignorance of British politics and the Westminster government system.

thanks for your support. I believe the queen and monarchy is taking an unfair battering from anti-monarchists and the royal family suffers from intense media speculation. The queen as a head of state owes no allegiance to a political party unlike a president who would make decisions he/she thought could gain votes whether in the best longterm interests of the nation.

it is believed that the cost of an elected head of state in britain, a president, would cost more than the current monarch does.

I would imagine it would cost about the same, wouldn't it?
But you'd have to organise elections etc, pay for putting their kids, grandkids and all other family members through private education etc, so it probably would cost more. Silly me.

One thing I've always wondered about these crazy far-left republican fundamentalist idealists' plans, is that if Britain was to have an elected Head of State, would s/he have any legislative, executive or judicial powers, or would s/he simply be a figurehead as the Queen is now?
If so, why bother destroying our heritage for someone who does exactly the same thing? Why bother the massive upheaval of stripping ALL Royals of titles and honours and reforming the Upper House - you couldn't call it the House of Lords - and changing our entire political system just so that we can have an elected Head of State with the same powers as a hereditary one?
It's ludicrous! :eek:

I would imagine it would cost about the same, wouldn't it?
But you'd have to organise elections etc, pay for putting their kids, grandkids and all other family members through private education etc, so it probably would cost more. Silly me.

One thing I've always wondered about these crazy far-left republican fundamentalist idealists' plans, is that if Britain was to have an elected Head of State, would s/he have any legislative, executive or judicial powers, or would s/he simply be a figurehead as the Queen is now?
If so, why bother destroying our heritage for someone who does exactly the same thing? Why bother the massive upheaval of stripping ALL Royals of titles and honours and reforming the Upper House - you couldn't call it the House of Lords - and changing our entire political system just so that we can have an elected Head of State with the same powers as a hereditary one?
It's ludicrous! :eek:

Simply because some people are bitter there there might actually be other people in the world who are better off than them. What especially aggravates them is the fact that this inherited wealth is given regardless of ability, which makes many feel jealous.

Tony Benn would probably be better at explaining than me...

I would imagine it would cost about the same, wouldn't it?
But you'd have to organise elections etc, pay for putting their kids, grandkids and all other family members through private education etc, so it probably would cost more. Silly me.

One thing I've always wondered about these crazy far-left republican fundamentalist idealists' plans, is that if Britain was to have an elected Head of State, would s/he have any legislative, executive or judicial powers, or would s/he simply be a figurehead as the Queen is now?
If so, why bother destroying our heritage for someone who does exactly the same thing? Why bother the massive upheaval of stripping ALL Royals of titles and honours and reforming the Upper House - you couldn't call it the House of Lords - and changing our entire political system just so that we can have an elected Head of State with the same powers as a hereditary one?
It's ludicrous! :eek:

This is a fantastically important point, the ruining of Britain's cultural heritage and to a good degree the heritage of the commonwealth countries is the most ridiculous idea. The abolishment of the monarchy is a vain attempt to make everyone equal, the attempts to achieve this has shown to have failed, russia tried it with communism...Stalin need i say more

from the monarchy website...

The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State. As well as carrying out significant constitutional functions, The Queen also acts as a focus for national unity, presiding at ceremonial occasions, visiting local communities and representing Britain around the world.

The Queen is also Head of the Commonwealth. During her reign she has visited all the Commonwealth countries, going on 'walkabouts' to gain direct contact with people from all walks of life throughout the world.

Behind and in front of the cameras, The Queen's work goes on, and no two days in The Queen's working life are ever the same.

The Queen and house of Lords are the last safeguards of the democratic process, they alone can help prevent radical and extremist policies becoming law. Woahahahahaha...

aww... thanks man, I needed a good laugh

We obviously couldn't give back North Belfast or Derry.. but if Fermanagh and Tyrone were returned, there would once again be a strong unionist majority in Northern Ireland.

And we all know how well it worked out last time there was a 'strong unionist majority' here.*


* ignoring the fact that there still is a strong unionist majority here, for the sake of argument.

it is believed that the cost of an elected head of state in britain, a president, would cost more than the current monarch does.show us the numbers...

She already has been immortalised, as she will be remebered as the Queen who saw Britain through from the end of Empire to the 21st century.

I think if anything she is more likely to be remembered in years to come as a footnote in trivia quizzes - the second longest reigning British monarch.

it is believed that the cost of an elected head of state in britain, a president, would cost more than the current monarch does.

Why would we need an elected head of state anyhow?

And we all know how well it worked out last time there was a 'strong unionist majority' here.*


* ignoring the fact that there still is a strong unionist majority here, for the sake of argument.

The fact is there isn't. 40% of Northern Ireland's population is Catholic, and as the Catholics have a higher birthrate than the Protestants eventually they should overtake them. If the proportion of Catholics was a significantly smaller proportion (say 20%) the Troubles would be on a much smaller scale.

Why would we need an elected head of state anyhow?

i dont see your argument here
the head of state would either be non-elected ie the queen, or it would be elected, a president

i dont think we should have an elected head of state, i think Britain should keep the queen as the head of state

...the royal family suffers from intense media speculation.they are suffering too much...poor them...

Put them out of their bloody agony already... ;)

i dont see your argument here
the head of state would either be non-elected ie the queen, or it would be elected, a president

i dont think we should have an elected head of state, i think Britain should keep the queen as the head of state

My question was more along the lines of 'why would we need a head of state anyhow?'.

The fact is there isn't. 40% of Northern Ireland's population is Catholic, and as the Catholics have a higher birthrate than the Protestants eventually they should overtake them. take over when? 2009?

The fact is there isn't. 40% of Northern Ireland's population is Catholic, and as the Catholics have a higher birthrate than the Protestants eventually they should overtake them. If the proportion of Catholics was a significantly smaller proportion (say 20%) the Troubles would be on a much smaller scale.

1. 'Protestant' != 'Unionist'

2. The Catholic birthrate is in decline, and if it follows the trends visible in the South, then it will equalise the Protestant brithrate before the number of Catholics equals the number of Protestants.

1. 'Protestant' != 'Unionist'
Ah yes. I love that misnomer. Much like, Irish=Catholic :rolleyes:

it is believed that the cost of an elected head of state in britain, a president, would cost more than the current monarch does
Would it be too much for you to show us some proof of that claim? Or is it merely your opinion? Because therefore, it is my opinion that the head of state would cost the same regardless of whether you elect them or not.

Ah yes. I love that misnomer. Much like, Irish=Catholic :rolleyes:


Would it be too much for you to show us some proof of that claim? Or is it merely your opinion? Because therefore, it is my opinion that the head of state would cost the same regardless of whether you elect them or not.


It is not my opinion, i would not be foolish enough to voice my opinion on how much a president would cost compared to a queen. It is a fact i have read about although i have not got any evidence at the momen, i'll try to get back to you

It is not my opinion, i would not be foolish enough to voice my opinion on how much a president would cost compared to a queen. It is a fact i have read about although i have not got any evidence at the momen, i'll try to get back to you
Thank you :) I await on tenderhooks.

ok the queen costs each person in britain 61 pence, i shall continue to find estimates for the cost of a british president.

Its the best 61p i have ever spent

Damn Scottish. Wouldn't be complaining if they had the power would they? Hmmm?
And for God's sake people, heard of the Parliament Act?

I think if anything she is more likely to be remembered in years to come as a footnote in trivia quizzes - the second longest reigning British monarch.

Third longest reigning British monarch - longest was Queen Victoria (1837-1901, 64 years); followed by George III (1760-1820, 60 years). Currently, the Queen is in third place (1952-present, 53 years).

An interesting fact I came upon referring to the quest of certain unnamed members of this thread for Scottish secession and independence:

The Alien Act 1705 was passed by Parliament after the Scottish parliament passed the Act of Security 1704.
(The whole arguement is based upon succession, and comes before the legal union of the Crowns.)
Should Scotland become separate from England in any way - ie, secession from the Union - the Scottish estates in England shall be considered alien property and siezed by the ENGLISH crown, and there shall be an embargo upon ALL Scottish trade into and out of England.

Provision was made to ensure that should Scotland enter negotiations with England over the disputes between the two Parliaments, the Act should be made void. This occurred with the Act of Union 1707.

However, should Scotland secede from the Union, this Act shall come into force.

Never mind Scotland.

ok the queen costs each person in britain 61 pence.
I knew that anyway.


Its the best 61p i have ever spent

Really? Mine was an icecream cone on the hottest day of the year, about 3 years ago..... yum yum. :p

and there shall be an embargo upon ALL Scottish trade into and out of England.

I think the damn E.U. would have something to say about that.
:mad:

The fact is there isn't. 40% of Northern Ireland's population is Catholic, and as the Catholics have a higher birthrate than the Protestants eventually they should overtake them. If the proportion of Catholics was a significantly smaller proportion (say 20%) the Troubles would be on a much smaller scale.
For a start, Catholic =/= nationalist, and Protestant =/= unionist.

There are some unionist Catholics, and some nationalist Protestants. In fact, if I remember correctly, the proportion of unionist Catholics is quite a bit higher than the proportion of nationalist Protestants.

Don't quote me on that, though.

Damn Scottish. Wouldn't be complaining if they had the power would they? Hmmm?
And for God's sake people, heard of the Parliament Act?

Precisely. Tea party with myself, Maelog, Laenis, Rev. Paisley and The Campbell Dynasty?

Parliament Acts: marvellous. Why didn't I think of those? :D

I think the damn E.U. would have something to say about that.
:mad:

Aha, but Scotland would have to be part of the EU and the UN first though, wouldn't they?! EU jurisdiction does not apply to non-members - same applies to the UN.
All we'd have to do would be to refuse to recognise them as a sovereign state. Being one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, if we veoted their application, they would never be independent.

:D

Precisely. Tea party with myself, Maelog, Laenis, Rev. Paisley and The Campbell Dynasty?

Parliament Acts: marvellous. Why didn't I think of those? :D
Paisley probably thinks tea-parties are immoral and a breeding ground for homosexuality or something.

Ask him about Paul Berry.

. Being one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, if we veoted their application, they would never be independent.

I know you're joking, but anyway I don't think the SC has anything to do with recognition of states existence.

I know you're joking, but anyway I don't think the SC has anything to do with recognition of states existence.

Actually, a country is only really recognised internationally once it is a member of the UN - yes, I realise the UN non-members that are independent. Before a nation can become a member of the UN, it must be recognised by a majority of the UN Security Council members. However, for the nation to pass to the next stage, none of the 5 permanent members can veto the application.
If they do, the application is failed, and sovereignty generally not recognised.

If they don't, the nation has to be approved by a simple 2/3 majority of the General Assembly.

So, yes, in a way, the Secirity Council does have something to do with the recognition of states' existence.

And yes, I am only joking. ;)

Aha, but Scotland would have to be part of the EU and the UN first though, wouldn't they?! EU jurisdiction does not apply to non-members - same applies to the UN.
All we'd have to do would be to refuse to recognise them as a sovereign state. Being one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, if we veoted their application, they would never be independent.

:D
and all this serves to do what?

and whats so bad about the EU? [opens up a whole new can of worms :D]

and all this serves to do what?

and whats so bad about the EU? [opens up a whole new can of worms :D]

Do you really want me to answer that?

Precisely. Tea party with myself, Maelog, Laenis, Rev. Paisley and The Campbell Dynasty?

Fair trade tea?

Really? Mine was an icecream cone on the hottest day of the year, about 3 years ago..... yum yum. :p

Must of been a bloody small icecream for 61p.

Do you really want me to answer that?

I don't think we have time to deconstruct the Fourth Reich...

I don't think we have time to deconstruct the Fourth Reich...
I thought thats what we were doing...Oh, you don't mean the remnants of the Empire?.. oops... :p

Paisley probably thinks tea-parties are immoral and a breeding ground for homosexuality or something.

Did you hear the Radio 4 documentary called Document a few years back? All about the historical significance of punk in Northern Ireland, focused upon the Teenage Kicks single. A quite entertaining interview with the Reverend where he talks about co-hosting with one of his daughters tea-parties for the punks of Belfast. Strange but true.

Third longest reigning British monarch - longest was Queen Victoria (1837-1901, 64 years); followed by George III (1760-1820, 60 years). Currently, the Queen is in third place (1952-present, 53 years).

Mea culpa. I had intended to write 'queen' rather than 'monarch' there. Apologies.

Precisely. Tea party with myself, Maelog, Laenis, Rev. Paisley and The Campbell Dynasty?

Parliament Acts: marvellous. Why didn't I think of those? :D

How did I get invited in with that group of right wingers? O.o (Assuming Paisley is, i'm not really sure)

Surely Elizabeth will end up as the longest-reigning monarch? After all, she is 80 now and has been reigning for 53 years, and considering her mother lived to be 101, it could be concievable that she could reign for more than 70 years...

Let's not forget the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, that should be great for many reasons.

Let's not forget the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, that should be great for many reasons.

Oh my...
Coincidence that we got the Olympics for 2012? 2012 will truly be a fabulous year for Britain.

God Save The Queen!
*waves flag*

Fair trade tea?

If that is your preference, then yes.

However, if you enjoy your tea only in the knowledge that people in Africa have been exploited and are being paid about 3p a year, then that is the tea that we will drink.

I don't like tea, and so it doesn't apply to me - I'll stick to Fair Trade Coffee, thanks.

Oh my...
Coincidence that we got the Olympics for 2012? 2012 will truly be a fabulous year for Britain.

God Save The Queen!
*waves flag*

*raises glass in salute*

I hope 2012 will be a fruitfull one for the mother country of Great Britain.

And so, let us hope that dear old Queenie lives another seven years - at the very least - so that we can celebrate Her Diamond Jubilee at the opening festival of the Olympic games.

In your face, Jacques Chirac.

*Proceeds to sing National Anthem and waves flag in salute to Royal Family*

*raises glass in salute*

I hope 2012 will be a fruitfull one for the mother country of Great Britain.

If only there were more Americans like that... Who do you think is a better head of state, Bush or The Queen?

I'm sure she could add America to her list of kingdoms :)

If only there were more Americans like that... Who do you think is a better head of state, Bush or The Queen?

I'm sure she could add America to her list of kingdoms :)

What and have another Boston Tea Party? :P

As for a better head of state, I'm not going to touch that one with a 10 foot pole. I"ll be diplomatic and say that both are good for their respective countries.

*waits for the flames from americans*

All we'd have to do would be to refuse to recognise them as a sovereign state. Being one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, if we veoted their application, they would never be independent.

:Dwhy didnt you veto or trade-embargo Ireland?

:confused:

why didnt you veto or trade-embargo Ireland?

:confused:
Because they got beaten by the IRA ;)

Because they got beaten by the IRA ;)

As if Al Qaeda could threaten the queen. That sceptre of hers has a little shield generator. Silly terrorists.


(Also, Nadkor, check your tellemagrams.)

why didnt you veto or trade-embargo Ireland?

:confused:
When? We where made indepedant by agreement.

why didnt you veto or trade-embargo Ireland?

:confused:


* Doesn't understand question *

The Republic of Ireland/The Irish Free State/Eire came into being in 1921.

The United Nations came into being in 1945.

Perhaps this helps clarify matters...

Because they got beaten by the IRA ;)Scotland does not have an IRA-equivalent? :confused:

Scotland does not have an IRA-equivalent? :confused:
Not as far as I know, unless there are any minor groups that nobody takes seriously.

* Doesn't understand question *...I am trying to figure how come Ireland won independence...while Scotland keeps coming short...

did the Trade embargo work with Ireland?

I am trying to figure how come Ireland won independence...and not Scotland...

did the Trade embargo work with Ireland?
Ireland fought a war for independence, with an army, supported by the majority of the population. Scotland has neither a significant paramilitary army, nor widespread support for independence.

Ireland fought a war for independence, with an army, supported by the majority of the population. Scotland has neither a significant paramilitary army, nor widespread support for independence.that answers my question.

I am trying to figure how come Ireland won independence...while Scotland keeps coming short...

did the Trade embargo work with Ireland?


The United Kingdom made a regrettable mistake that it will not repeat.

The United Kingdom made a regrettable mistake that it will not repeat.
What... losing?
Because, thats happened a fair bit to ye old Brits in the past hundred years or so....;)

Because, thats happened a fair bit to ye old Brits in the past hundred years or so....;)

We were not fairly beaten, no englishman is ever fairly beaten.


And in order to lose the biggest Empire the world has ever known one must first build the largest empire the world has ever known. :D

britian shoud ditch the monachy. And become another half arsed republic? The Royal family A) Make Great Britain a real country, B) Make Great Britain a shitload of cash C) Stop all those journalists making a fuss about anything important. D) Make a legitimate reason to dress up a regiment in silly furry hats and E) Make our national anthem mean something. lets face it, "God save the queen" wouldnt work without a monarchy.

Besides, fuck em, threaten the Queen all you want, I believe she already showed she wasnt afraid by riding around in a topless horse drawn carriage after the july train bombings. Fair play to her. Terrorists are not more than an irritation really.

I hate sounding so cold hearted, but they are NOT a threat to our way of life unless the government overrreacts and proposes 90 days without trial for interrogation of suspects.....oh, wait......

On the other hand, by all means execute people for conspiracy to commit genocide.

And become another half arsed republic? The Royal family A) Make Great Britain a real country...


...but, Great Britain isn't a real country.

...but, Great Britain isn't a real country.

I was under the impression that Great Britain was, by definition, the ONLY real country.

...but, Great Britain isn't a real country.

Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland arent real countries, they are part of a country called the United Kingdom.

I was under the impression that Great Britain was, by definition, the ONLY real country.

It is a landmass, young fellow me lad, not a country.

It is a landmass, young fellow me lad, not a country.
Is that a real quote in your sig?

This must qualify as a troll right?

You wouldn't have any government left for a kick off. And that nice Mr Cameron must have a bit of Scots blood in him. Given that the Welsh are predominantly Socialist as well, that does for your Mr Davis too.

In the fields of business as well, you'd be reducing your talent base pretty badly. Face it my Anglo Saxon chum, your country benfits from the Union as much as Scotland does. Perhaps primarily from the relative levels of education and intelligence, but none the less.....
We'll have a few of your footballers mind....:fluffle:

I also long for welsh independence, for much the same reason. And as far as I am concerned, the alarming frequency with which the labour party gets to form governments is solely because of the welsh and the scots.

Is that a real quote in your sig?

Uh-huh. Taken from his contribution to the book It Makes You Want To Spit by Sean O'Neil & Guy Telford -

Okay, Punk Rockering up and down in France or England was one thing, but getting to Ulster was another. Although having the first concert cancelled was a big disappointment for everyone, at least it allowed for some close band/audience contact. If punk was hard, Ulster was harder. If punk was chaos, Ulster was a 'war zone'. Punk was the perfect soundtrack to the ravaged cities...

Uh-huh. Taken from his contribution to the book It Makes You Want To Spit by Sean O'Neil & Guy Telford -

Okay, Punk Rockering up and down in France or England was one thing, but getting to Ulster was another. Although having the first concert cancelled was a big disappointment for everyone, at least it allowed for some close band/audience contact. If punk was hard, Ulster was harder. If punk was chaos, Ulster was a 'war zone'. Punk was the perfect soundtrack to the ravaged cities...
That's pretty cool :)

Would it be too much for you to show us some proof of that claim? Or is it merely your opinion? Because therefore, it is my opinion that the head of state would cost the same regardless of whether you elect them or not

I suppose the fact that the elections would be at the expense of the tax-payer could make a president more expensive than a monarch.

To be honest, there is little real difference in the cost of either. However, it would cost a lot of money and time to change Britain from a monarchy into a republic. Seeing as the Queen works just as efficiently as a president would, I see no real reason to go through the huge hassell of changing on to the other.

Is that a real quote in your sig?
I Yahoo searched "If punk was hard, Ulster was harder" wiki

And I got this:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22If+punk+was+hard%2C+Ulster+was+harder%22+wiki&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2

Interesting book BTW...

To reiterate - The House of Lords is simply a ratificational body. It has no involvement in the construction of Laws. That is left to popularly elected members from the House of Commons.

If you don't like it, why don't you write to your MP? You know, the one that was elected?

Or perhaps the Queen? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, you don't like her, do you?

Actually, the Lords can propose legislation, pass it and then send it down the Commons for their assent. It is quite rare that an Act is passed like that but it can indeed be done.

Democracy is tyranny by the ignorant. The less we have of it, the better.

Democracy is tyranny by the ignorant. The less we have of it, the better.

Which is worse, a tyranny of the ignorant or a tyranny of intellectuals?

Scotland could( if it wasnt ran by pussies in tonys boxers) declare itself independent tomorrow, but it is a seperate country, we have entirely seperate legal system from the english, different economies, cultures , history

An academic report by a man called Wade actually showed that Scotland and Wales are subsidised by English taxpayers.

The simple fact of the matter is that seperation benefits no one. It would not benefit the Scots, it would not benefit the Welsh and it would not benefit the English. We do not want to destroy the Union simply to satisfy a fanciful, romanticised view of regional history.

Which is worse, a tyranny of the ignorant or a tyranny of intellectuals?

Oh the intellectuals. At least they know what they are doing, most of the time.

Democracy is tyranny by the ignorant.

Only if your educational system is a piece of shit.

An academic report by a man called Wade actually showed that Scotland and Wales are subsidised by English taxpayers.

The simple fact of the matter is that seperation benefits no one. It would not benefit the Scots, it would not benefit the Welsh and it would not benefit the English. We do not want to destroy the Union simply to satisfy a fanciful, romanticised view of regional history.
Were there not documents released recently which showed that Scotland actually, in effect, subsidises England in some way?

Only if your educational system is a piece of shit.

Not really, most people are stupid. It's a sad fact of human life :(

For a minute there I thought the title was "Al Quida threatens to Happy Mod the Queen of England"

Were there not documents released recently which showed that Scotland actually, in effect, subsidises England in some way?

Only if you count all the oil revenues as theirs, and as they are nearly exhausted it's not really relevant anymore.

An academic report by a man called Wade actually showed that Scotland and Wales are subsidised by English taxpayers.

The simple fact of the matter is that seperation benefits no one. It would not benefit the Scots, it would not benefit the Welsh and it would not benefit the English. We do not want to destroy the Union simply to satisfy a fanciful, romanticised view of regional history.

So, what the inhabitants of those places want doesn't come in to it then? How very kind of you :rolleyes: No wonder people fight when they're not listened to.

Not really, most people are stupid.

I'm reminded of a report that came out a few years ago which condemned the fact that 50% of all pupils were below average...

An academic report by a man called Wade actually showed that Scotland and Wales are subsidised by English taxpayers.

The simple fact of the matter is that seperation benefits no one. It would not benefit the Scots, it would not benefit the Welsh and it would not benefit the English. We do not want to destroy the Union simply to satisfy a fanciful, romanticised view of regional history.

Why wouldn't it benefit the English?

I'm reminded of a report that came out a few years ago which condemned the fact that 50% of all pupils were below average...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Perhaps people should have to pass an IQ/level of informedness test before they vote.

We can kiss goodbye to the Labour Party...

Why wouldn't it benefit the English?

Just imagine the enormous increase in price of such staples of everyday English life as Arbroath Smokies, leeks and champ.

For a minute there I thought the title was "Al Quida threatens to Happy Mod the Queen of England"make her happy?

are you talking like...erotically happy? :confused:

Just imagine the enormous increase in price of such staples of everyday English life as Arbroath Smokies, leeks and champ.

Bah, they grow plenty of leaks in County Durham. The only downside I can see would be an increase in the price of scotch.

Why wouldn't it benefit the English?

Think of all the tents and blankets we'd need for the refugees streaming over the border... It'd be most unseemly!

make her happy?

are you talking like...erotically happy? :confused:

sorry, game term. Happy Mod is a cheat system. It lets you see where everyone on the map is and lets you see through walls.

make her happy?

are you talking like...erotically happy? :confused:

"Doing hard time at her majesty's pleasure"

Think of all the tents and blankets we'd need for the refugees streaming over the border... It'd be most unseemly!

Have people already forgotten my far-sighted fence plan?

Have people already forgotten my far-sighted fence plan?

The old 'Fog in channel - continent cut off' plan?

So, what the inhabitants of those places want doesn't come in to it then? How very kind of you :rolleyes: No wonder people fight when they're not listened to.

Actually, I have not seen evidence that the majority of either Scotland or Wales desire independence.

Actually, I have not seen evidence that the majority of either Scotland or Wales desire independence.

A majority of Welsh people didn't want the Assembly:mad:

The only people who want independence are slefish nationalists, woh are only thinking of their potential place in the history books. If they were true patriots, they wouldn't be working to destroy a union which has benefitted all three countries.

A majority of Welsh people didn't want the Assembly:mad:

The only people who want independence are slefish nationalists, woh are only thinking of their potential place in the history books. If they were true patriots, they wouldn't be working to destroy a union which has benefitted all three countries.


I thought the welsh assembly was a church until i got through the security checkpoint.

In the US they have churches called "Assembly of God" and I assumed that was what it was.

Which said, it could have been seized by 10 men using swords bought in a gift shop near Cardiff Castle.

A majority of Welsh people didn't want the Assembly:mad:

The only people who want independence are slefish nationalists, woh are only thinking of their potential place in the history books. If they were true patriots, they wouldn't be working to destroy a union which has benefitted all three countries.

And the Scots? And the Irish? Pray tell, enlighten us as to the benefits both received under English rule. As non-equals in the Empire, as participants in a system that was detremental to those cultures, to the millions that died at the ineptness of English governance.

Why should it be up to English people to decide the fate of Scots, Welsh, Irish or Northern Irish?

Unpatriotic!? Don't make me laugh! 'Britishness' all too often means 'Englishness'

The old 'Fog in channel - continent cut off' plan?

I am just saying that the Romans had the right idea. Of course, the Lacadaemon Wall, would have to be further north streching from just south of Gretna Green to just north of Berwick.

Right now, the situation is ridiculous. Do you realize that you can just drive into England from Scotland without having to go through any type of border control. This allows the scots to come south with impunity, and worry the sheep in the cheviots.

"Doing hard time at her majesty's pleasure"bringing torture to a whole new level... :D :D :eek: :D

And the Scots? And the Irish? Pray tell, enlighten us as to the benefits both received under English rule. As non-equals in the Empire, as participants in a system that was detremental to those cultures, to the millions that died at the ineptness of English governance.

Why should it be up to English people to decide the fate of Scots, Welsh, Irish or Northern Irish?

Unpatriotic!? Don't make me laugh! 'Britishness' all too often means 'Englishness'

They gained the international language, the rule of law, parliamentary government...I could go on

Right now, the situation is ridiculous. Do you realize that you can just drive into England from Scotland without having to go through any type of border control. This allows the scots to come south with impunity, and worry the sheep in the cheviots.
Yea, I hear the Scots have been trying to keep you lot out for quite a while.

They gained the international language, the rule of law, parliamentary government...I could go on
Please do. Because I would like to see where you draw the line at oppression= good!

Next, you might also show the benefits the African/Carribean-American population received during their slavery and how oppression= good!

Yea, I hear the Scots have been trying to keep you lot out for quite a while.

Not me, I never go there on principle. Though my brother lives up there. In a cave or something, one would assume.

Please do. Because I would like to see where you draw the line at oppression= good!

Next, you might also show the benefits the African/Carribean-American population received during their slavery and how oppression= good!

Toilets! The english gave the rest of the Island flushing toilets.

I am just saying that the Romans had the right idea. Of course, the Lacadaemon Wall, would have to be further north streching from just south of Gretna Green to just north of Berwick.

Right now, the situation is ridiculous. Do you realize that you can just drive into England from Scotland without having to go through any type of border control. This allows the scots to come south with impunity, and worry the sheep in the cheviots.

Really, as you argument here is at base a financial one, it would make sense to apply the guiding principle more rigorously. Instead of just arbitrarily sealing off Scotland as a drain on the rest of the UK, one could set up a series of cordons around those areas, whether they be in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England which are generating a loss rather than a profit. It seems illogical to throw away the economic centres of Edinburgh or Glasgow whilst still clinging on to Hulme or the Ardoyne. What is needed is not the Lacadaemon line scribed across a map following a route decided by accidents of history, but rather a series or forced seccessions dictated on a basis of pure fiscal pragmatism.

Probably best not to sell the idea as a creation of multiple ghettos, and instead to concentrate on the gift of freedom being granted to the areas which were economic liabilities. It could all be marketed as a great show of benevolence.

They gained the international language, the rule of law, parliamentary government...I could go on

The Irish had the international language (latin), an established corpus of laws that put the yet rudimentary English common law to shame and a highly evolved system of governance and representation prior to the Norman invasions. So what have the English ever done for us (apart from not giving us the international language, not giving us the rule of law and not giving us parliamentary government)?

The Irish had the international language (latin), an established corpus of laws that put the yet rudimentary English common law to shame and a highly evolved system of governance and representation prior to the Norman invasions. So what have the English ever done for us (apart from not giving us the international language, not giving us the rule of law and not giving us parliamentary government)?


Hastings was one of the pivotal moments in human history. It created the English language and the English Common Law, the two greatest gifts ever bestowed by on the world.

Say whatever you like about the British Empire, imagine an India or Hong Kong without Britain.

Really, as you argument here is at base a financial one, it would make sense to apply the guiding principle more rigorously. Instead of just arbitrarily sealing off Scotland as a drain on the rest of the UK, one could set up a series of cordons around those areas, whether they be in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England which are generating a loss rather than a profit. It seems illogical to throw away the economic centres of Edinburgh or Glasgow whilst still clinging on to Hulme or the Ardoyne. What is needed is not the Lacadaemon line scribed across a map following a route decided by accidents of history, but rather a series or forced seccessions dictated on a basis of pure fiscal pragmatism.

Probably best not to sell the idea as a creation of multiple ghettos, and instead to concentrate on the gift of freedom being granted to the areas which were economic liabilities. It could all be marketed as a great show of benevolence.

Fuck. That's brilliant. You sir, are a genius.

Except for the bit about Edinburgh. I hate that town.