I am livid about this:
If the Queen does not like Scottish law it is time for her to go, I suggest.
I develop the theme in my column for The National, already written his morning and, I hope, out later today. I do not mince my words or seek to disguise my anger.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
All I can say is what a selfish old bint Queenie is.
They say that the rot starts at the top and this proves it to me.
Her family are tolerated and kept where they are only because their primacy is used to validate the whole corrupt establishment apparatus that rules over us.
More worryingly, what the hell are Scottish leaders doing not telling people what is going on? Are these the same people who will sell Scotland short when it goes independent?
Who rules this nation? That’s what I want to know. Because it seems like Queenie and Co are the puppeteers and that frankly is not on.
If you want to roll back the state, start with the House of Windsor I say.
Well quite! Also time, I suggest, for reform of the Scottish government which seems to be emulating too many of Westminster’s ways.
Dont forget this too, Richard ….. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
I am not surprised in the least by this news. The story is repeated with respect to land ownership: who owns all UK land?… the Queen. As a Uk lawyer said to me… we learn this stuff in 1st year. Revolution is required. Northing else will suffice. The Saxe Coburg Gothas have to go.
It is time for a nationwide referendum. A republic or a monarchy. We can no longer put up with the elite capitalists ruining our environment and assess stripping the country
A few points of factual accuracy.
As the article makes clear, but not the headline, the Queen did not lobby anyone. Her lawyers raised a concern. Whether they were right (or indeed wise) to do so is another matter.
Until Parliament passes an Act and it has received Royal Assent, there is no legislation to like or dislike. Only proposals and a Bill – that is, draft legislation. At no point was the Queen’s Consent refused, and I have no doubt that the Queen would have given consent (on the advice of her Scottish government) with or without any amendments being made to the bill. And of course the Scottish parliament debated and the passed the bill as amended.
The process of Queen’s Consent is not secret. There has been a Wikipedia article on Queen’s Consent since at least 2011, and information on gov.uk since at least 2013.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen%27s_Consent&oldid=464820711
* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queens-or-princes-consent
Perhaps it is described as “arcane” or “secret” and “revealed” by journalists because they were not paying attention before.
But “Scottish government makes drafting amendments to bill in response to concerned raised by Queen’s lawyers” would not be as impactful a headline.
I do not believe that the intervention would gave been made without her consent
You are describing the firm
I think I am describing the substance
That’s the difference between lawyers and accountants 🙂
Ooohhh…nice one Richard!
A referendum would be disastrous on this issue. It would be a top-down led far-right media controlled event with terrible consequences similar to Brexit. Only a mass democratic movement from below (or if you like revolution) is going to change anything.
The challenge of course is what do we want to replace the Monarchy with?
The referendum on becoming a republic failed in Australia because the proposed replacement was seen as a job for a failed politician.
My other suggestion is that the big reason for replacing the Monarchy is the effect that being in the family has on its members.
The challenge of course is what do we want to replace the Monarchy with?
The role of head of state is symbolic, rather than functional. I would advocate that the position should be given to citizens chosen randomly from the population to serve for a a year. They can get to live in Buckingham Palace and meet with thir Dutch and Danish counterparts and whatever else these heads of state do. Each serving person would be given a year to prepare for their investiture.
It could be you!
As long as there is the chance to refuse…..
The only hope for the British people is to remove these parasites along with the unelected House of Lords.