Thread: The New 10 Commandments BBC2-Scotland Sunday 7 December 22.50-00.30,

Originally Posted by Northumbrian

Is that an English republic? If only I'd been around in 1642.

Well I am strongly in favour of a Scottish republic and I think we Britons need some kind of British republic as well - for those of my two nationalities - Scottish and British - I have a say.

On whether there should be an English republic - or 2 English republics - or whatever alternative republics the people of England can imagine - it is not for me to say one way or another.

So long as the democratic rights of the people of England to come to their own views and decisions democratically as to what they would like exactly in terms of how many republics over what areas and what consenting nations, I am happy.

On the other hand, if some Queen tells the English they CAN'T have ANY republics, then I will stand with the rights of the people of England and join you in a fight for freedom against our common enemy the Queen.

I have written something about the options for republics in a Scottish context in my website.

Which is second best - an Independent Scottish Kingdom or a British Republic?

The need for a British state after Scottish independence

Those pages may give you some ideas for an English republic, but I would imagine that there are English republicans somewhere already who could advise you on that - certainly the likes of the Cross of St George Forum have been strong supporters of an English parliament, so after that I assume the next step would be an English republic but it is really for the people of England to decide their set up.

Obviously, if the people of England decide they want to keep the Queen as head of state and we Scots decide we have to kill her to keep her out of Scotland and out of Scottish government then all apologies will be due to the people of England with no offence meant. We would send flowers to the English head of state's funeral, even if we had to kill her or him ourselves. Why? Because we Scots love the English as is well known!

We Scots would respect the English choice of government and head of state of an English state so long as that head of state is not imposing things on Scots in Scotland.

Do you think the Queen actually pulls the strings still then?

If so, do you have any supporting evidence for that?

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Do you think the Queen actually pulls the strings still then?

If so, do you have any supporting evidence for that?

Having a Queen and a Kingdom prevents us having a republic and a president to pull some strings in a useful way.

The Queen is more of a rubber-stamp to undemocratic oppression carried out by the state and its ministers and its officers.

I am very aware that political decisions are taken by politicians and judges and the like. I am not a conspiracy nut.

It is no secret that the state is called the "United Kingdom" and that the government goes by the name of "HMG" - Her Majesty's Government. Even if that is just a formality, it is the formality I am objecting to as a republican and a democrat.

As "only" a figure-head or a rubber-stamp, for ceremonial purposes, a constitutional monarchy, the Queen and the Kingdom is 100% in the way of British republics, therefore the Queen must go if we want a proper democracy.

However, occasionally decisions are taken in the name of the Queen - most recently in Canada to prorogue the parliament - send it for a long holiday because the Canadian Prime Minister does not command majority support in the Canadian parliament.

Sure the Queen acts on advice of the PM and has a Privy Council for tricky decisions - people with the title "The Right Honourable .." but it is not democracy and therefore it should be opposed.

And opposed not in a weak way saying "Oh dear how terrible" but doing nothing.

No opposed in the way we opposed Hitler and the Nazis - if it takes war to remove the monarchy and Kingdom then I am for war.

The supporting evidence for republican seriousness is all the previous monarchs we have overthrown in history.

Even wee delights such as blowing up Lord Mountbatten (Prince Philip's uncle) in Ireland when he went fishing are nice. It would be nice to do the same for the Duke of Edinburgh when he comes to Scotland.

Now I know most people won't believe it. Only after the Queen and Kingdom has actually gone will most people believe it.

What matters is for serious republicans to call for military action now to remove the monarchy. It matters not what the sceptical member of the public believes.

The evidence for King Charles I being in the wrong was his dead body after execution. Most people would accept no other evidence. Fine then kill the royals if that is what it takes to convince people.

The USA is a republic. Do you think they have it any better than us?

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

The USA is a republic. Do you think they have it any better than us?

Constitutionally as a republic, the USA is better than the UK. Certainly the average person has it better it all kinds of ways. However, the American poor do not have it better than the British poor.

For example, I think the idea of the British National Health Service is a better idea than American privatised medical insurance with many people with no cover - but I do not trust the UK to run the NHS so having an NHS is no excuse for keeping the Queen. We can have an NHS and a republic with fewer problems or at least fewer problems which cannot be solved.

Presumably, you think America has something to offer because I note you are a Ron Paul supporter and I don't think Ron Paul is for making the USA into a monarchy, UK style.

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I think the question of whether we are a monarchy or not is way down the list of things that need to be sorted out.

Getting the people who actually impose the laws on us, along with their paymasters and media lackeys is much more urgent.

I also note that you do actually support theiving after all, with your support of the NHS. Why Socialists can't just be honest about that, I have no idea.

The state and the head of state are the people who actually impose the laws on us. That is the police and the inland revenue and the courts and so on. They are the state and their head is the Queen.

How do you propose to "get them" then? Not by rigged elections when every elected person to parliament must give an oath of loyalty to the Queen to take up their seat in parliament and even if you lie to do that, MPs and MSPs can be booted out for disagreeing with the Speaker and the majority of MPs.

The head of state is the most important person to get.

I support the NHS but not the UK taxing people to fund it or to run it.

I would support fair taxation to run the NHS in a democratic republic yes. I would not call that theft because it would be money going to the people - if it was government by the people.

I would also support your right to call it "thieving" at any point, kingdom or republic, as that is your democratic right of freedom of expression.

I will simply point out under the UK status quo rule now, by defending the master-thief, the crime-boss, Queen Elizabeth - by not going after her - you are aiding and abetting the thieves you claim to oppose.

You defend the Queen of Thieves - yet you say you want to go after "thieves". You make no sense.

I would support fair taxation to run the NHS in a democratic republic yes. I would not call that theft because it would be money going to the people - if it was government by the people.

Any time money is taken from someone, who does not want it taken from them is theft in my book.

I support the NHS but not the UK taxing people to fund it or to run it.

The NHS is built on the principle of taking money from everyone, via forced insurance (a bit like the Mafia). You don't support the NHS system at all, if you don't support its funding via forced insurance.

I will simply point out under the UK status quo rule now, by defending the master-thief, the crime-boss, Queen Elizabeth - by not going after her - you are aiding and abetting the thieves you claim to oppose.

You will have to supply me with clear evidence that she is a main driver in all this first. As far as I can see, she is a passive parasite, who has a bunch of career merchants who happily let her exist as is, as long as she shuts up and doesn't intererfere.

You defend the Queen of Thieves - yet you say you want to go after "thieves". You make no sense.

I don't defend her at all. I simply think there are bigger fish to fry. You continue on your mission though, as it obviously means a lot to you.

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Any time money is taken from someone, who does not want it taken from them is theft in my book.

The NHS is built on the principle of taking money from everyone, via forced insurance (a bit like the Mafia). You don't support the NHS system at all, if you don't support its funding via forced insurance.

You will have to supply me with clear evidence that she is a main driver in all this first. As far as I can see, she is a passive parasite, who has a bunch of career merchants who happily let her exist as is, as long as she shuts up and doesn't intererfere.

I don't defend her at all. I simply think there are bigger fish to fry. You continue on your mission though, as it obviously means a lot to you.

Publish your book then. Sell it from street corners. Or better still set up a website.

Only beware that the UK does not defend the right to publish. If you want to avoid the burning of your book, it is best to burn the UK down first and burn the Queen at the stake first of all.

The UK is exactly like the Mafia, only with nuclear weapons.

A democratic republic is nothing like the mafia. It is you the people governing. That is the theory - democracy means "government by all the people".

So for me it depends who is doing the forced national insurance and taxing - an unaccountable brutal kingdom, or an accountable civil republic.

If you don't want to pay the price of living amongst the people then don't. I am sure you can find a deserted island somewhere with no taxation to speak of.

The Queen is not the "driver" - she is the "chairman of the board of the bus company" - she is exactly a passive parasite in whose name the "company" is badly run with a long history of accidents and road deaths. If you want better drivers though, you need to sack the chairman of the board because nothing less will lead to a clear out of the incompetent middle-managers who have been running the "company".