LABOUR CONFUSES ME

I have to confess.

I'm perplexed.

Johann Lamont recently said that she didn't think that giving kids in primary school a cooked lunch was a priority. Labour in general seems to feel that across the board policies of social security are wrong, and that people should be means tested.

Indeed our own Niko, a strong Labour supporter, indicated on this blog that giving all the kids a free lunch meant that poor people were subsidising rich people... as ordinary workers would be helping to pay for the lunches of the rich (although technically that is dubious as the scheme only operates in state schools, and not independent schools to which the offspring of the elite tend to go, but fair enough that they would be subsidising the incomes of the lower middle classes).

However, Labour-run Glasgow Council has just come up with a brilliant scheme (for which I heartily commend them) to put £10 into every account with a credit union opened by any S1 pupil in the city.

The hope is that this will start a habit of saving and encourage kids to stay away for the payday loan sharks, like Mr Cameron's friend and advisor Wonga.com, that infest the internet, promising "never be poor again" loans at exorbitant rates of interest, meaning that, of course, you will always be poor.

Most children of brain surgeons or MSPs don't end up going to loan sharks, but they too will be at liberty to profit from the scheme and get their ten pounds. Par contre, the very poorest of the kids with parents living on dirt poor wages or social security, just scraping by, going cold and hungry, ill clad and ill shod, are the least likely to be able to find the money to open the account and profit from the free tenner, courtesy of Glasgow taxpayers.

Could someone please explain to me Labour's policy on who should profit from what?
**********

In another confusing situation, one of Better Together's strongest supporters, close friend of Tommy Sheridan, Mike Dailly, a lawyer at Govan Law centre, says that he is inclined to be pro YES, because he sees Scotland as a progressive country held back by the ancient and creaking systems thrust on it by a conservative England.

What stops him changing sides is that he sees no realistic chance of Scotland throwing off the monarchy and aristocracy and becoming a republic, so he's going to stick with the union.

So, that makes sense, doesn't it?

If Scotland isn't going to become a republic he'd rather stick with the erm... united KINGDOM.

Now, I'm all for a republic.  I didn't mind the royals in the old days. It seemed to me that they did no one much harm and they probably did attract a few gaupers to Deeside during the summer, and they would spend money so it was a t least good for the folk at Braemar. And yes, let's be fair, a lot of old people liked them and were thrilled to see them, meet them... whatever.

Then of course this family that we put on a pedestal and throw money at showed that they are a shower of self serving sharks, from the selfish self centred Charles Rothsay who was unable to see that you have to compromise on most things in life and insisted that he would have Mrs Parker Bowles and Diana, come what may, to Airmiles Andy, the fat pig who insists on royal flight helicopters to take him to golf matches and protection officers for his odious drunken daughters so they can have ordinary lives which soaking up al that we throw at them, and now to the queen herself who is splitting the money for the gold to be mined in Kernow with her equally greedy eldest son. Never mind the locals, huh? So yes, now I'm am very unkeen on them (even though my spell check tells me that I can't be "unkeen"!).

However, next to bedroom taxes, lords, MPs, nuclear weapons, illegal wars, bankers, etc, etc, etc, this shower of scroungers don't even figure. 

Scotland may not take titles away from people who have been given them. It's a bit of a waste doing that anyway; they just use them regardless. But lords will no longer be created in Scotland and those who wish to continue to sit in the house of lords will have to become English in order to do so.

So, what is important to this man. The grinding poverty and misery that he must see on a daily basis, or some old royals, who after independence will no longer be our expense, except when in this country (as they are in other monarchies like Australia, New Zealand and Canada).

And of the two... The UK and Scotland, which is more likely to get rid of this frippery in the next 50 years?

Does anyone in Labour ever think before they open their mouths?

Australian State ditches Queen

Rob Hulls, Acting State Premier of Victoria

The Telegraph reports today that the Australian state of Victoria is to dump the Queen from legal proceedings.

From the 1st January 2010 all criminal court cases in the State of Victoria will be brought in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions instead of in the name of Elizabeth II as has hitherto been the case.

The State’s Attorney General and Acting Premier, Rob Hulls, said: “Having cases presented in the name of the Queen of England is an outdated colonial tradition that has really passed its use-by date”. He went on to say that "substituting the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Queen, or Regina, reflects the legal and political independence from the United Kingdom and its monarch that has been achieved by Australia".

Mr Hulls of the Australian Labour Party, who is an avowed republican, said: "This is all about making our laws and legal procedures relevant. It's no more or less than that".

The move follows two previous controversial changes to Victoria's legal system, scrapping the title Queen's Counsel and ending a requirement for new lawyers to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Professor David Flint, the Convener of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, said: "It's yet another example of creeping republicanism. The people in 1999 took a decision in which they affirmed that we should remain a federal commonwealth under the crown. It's completely wrong for governments to remove all reference to the crown as a gradual sort of thing."

The controversy is due to overshadow a three day visit by Prince William which will include a keynote speech at a reception in Melbourne to mark Australia Day. This has incensed Australian republicans. David Donovan, of the Australian Republican Movement, said: "We would find it unbelievable that Prince William, who hasn't been to Australia since he was in nappies - and who as President of the England Football Association has strongly promoted its bid for the 2018 World Cup, in direct opposition to Australia's bid - would be able to speak to Australians on our own national day. You would think that just showing a little bit of subtlety with regards to this very important day in Australia's calendar would be the way to go."

Philip Benwell, chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, defended the invitation to the Prince saying: “Prince William will be King of Australia in the future and it's therefore appropriate that he's invited to speak".

Mr Hulls, however, denied that the legal change was a snub to Prince William, who arrives in Victoria on January 21 during a visit that has been described as “an opportunity to better acquaint himself with Australia”.

Good for Mr Hulls and the State of Victoria. So refreshing to see a Labour Party that has not gone soft in the head and weak at the knee where royalty is concerned. Such a huge pity that our own has sold its working class principles down the river for a few extra years in number 10 Downing Street, a few seats on the august red benches and a few of the tarnished baubles left over from the British Empire. The fact is that monarchy has had its day and monarchy by proxy like they have in Australia, Canada and New Zealand must have had it doubly so.

Can Charles possibly be the future?

This blog is, as we’ve said before, Republican in nature and was gratified the other day to find in our poll a pretty hefty support for a republican future for Scotland...

However, I have no gripe with the Queen personally. She’s an old woman who has done a job for us for nearly 60 years. She’s actually 83 and like most people of that age she’s starting to slow down. It’s not the personality of the Queen, but the nature of monarchy that I have a problem with, and I’ve always hoped that the independent Scotland that I feel will someday come, would opt for a more modern and democratic form of government.

With monarchy you get what you get, instead of what you choose.

So, whilst the Queen has done her job pretty steadfastly, sometimes even with a smile, and kept the crown out of politics, her successor has poked his nose in to all and sundry, fired off letter to ministers demanding meetings, involved himself in all manner of things including, most recently, planning permissions and generally ‘got political’. Furthermore, it has been reported that he would hope to carry this political involvement into the future and his kingship. Now Charles may sometimes be right, at least in the opinion of some people, but that doesn’t matter at all. In that the present situation has worked at all, it has worked on the basis of complete neutrality from the palace. Rather like the civil service, the monarch has to work with whatever government the people choose with no bias, and as far as we know the Queen has done that.

Both the Queen and Prince Philip have toured the world many times. In fairness to them they have never shied away from the work, even in recent years when they are both into their 80s.

Prince Charles insisted that he be allowed to marry Mrs Parker–Bowles, despite the fact that the Church of which he will one day be titular head could not approve this marriage, Mrs Parker-Bowles being a divorcée with a living spouse. He has also indicated that he wants her to be crowned Queen, when he becomes King. This will put the Church in a position where they will have to recognise their marriage, although it goes against their teachings. However Charles does not like to tbe thwarted and will probably have his way.

At the same time it appears that Mrs Parker-Bowles does not care for touring around the world on official duties. She recently pulled out of the final leg of a tour of the Far East and looked very far from happy on a recent tour of Canada. A palace source apparently said that the last thing that she wants is to have her calendar packed with foreign tours. There’s nothing she likes better than having her kids and grandchildren over for Sunday lunch. She finds the heat in the tropics unbearable and just wants to spend time with her grandchildren.

It might be as well for her to remember that she is in receipt of a large sum of our cash.... and has several homes at our expense.

I respect the views of the monarchists in our midst who wish to maintain Elizabeth on the throne, and personally, I’d be the last to throw an old lady out of her home, but I do feel that, when the Queen finally dies, we may need to consider whether or not we want a non-executive hereditary head of state who insists on being executive, and who insists on his wife being crowned Queen despite the fact that this will be contrary to the teachings of the church of which by that time he will be the head, especially when all she really wants to do is stay and home and have meals with her grandchildren.

Maybe Prince Charles has chosen the wrong woman for a wife, again. She seems rather badly suited for the work. The photograph above certainly suggests it.


Source for much of the information here can be read by clicking on title.

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN: A REPUBLIC IT IS

First of all, I’d like to thank everyone who took part in the poll on the head of state for an independent Scotland.

It was an interesting result. Let’s be honest though, we’re not causing Yougov any sleepless nights here. With a sample of 43 on a blog with the word “republic” in its title we’re not going to change the world and I haven’t had the Palace of Holyrood House or Bute House on the phone.... yet!

So, here’s the way our 43 readers voted.....:

Republic the non executive President 30 (69%);

Republic with an executive President 3 (6%);

Monarchy with Elizabeth I as head of state 4 (9%);

Monarchy with another member of the House of Windsor as King/Queen 2 (4%);

Monarchy with invited King/Queen from another royal house 4 (9%).

There were 33 votes (75%) for a republic, and 10 votes (22%) for a monarchy. (Yes, I know, these things never add up properly; that’s only 97 %. It’s the rounding up/down.)

Was I surprised? No. Not much. I think I expected a few fewer votes for the Republic, and a few more for Elizabeth, but the percentages are not far off what I expected. Now, should this feeling be mirrored over the country, I wonder how we would elect, or appoint our President?

Given that (s)he is, according to our poll, to be non-executive and therefore more of an ambassador for our country on state visits, and as a host to other leaders in Edinburgh, does anyone have any ideas about who he or she might be?

Thanks again for taking part.

A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND A POLL

Seat of the Scottish Head of State

Isn’t it about time we began talking about what a future independent Scotland should be like? Math Campbell made the point well in his excellent article:

http://voxpopulivoxscoti.blogspot.com/2009/11/little-chat.html

There are many vexed questions that will need to be considered. Will we use the pound? Will we be in NATO? What voting system will we use? And so on. Perhaps in future polls we will ask some of these questions and others as Math suggests. I thought that, as the name of the blog suggests a republican agenda, it might be an idea to start with the question of whether an independent Scotland should be a republic or a monarchy.

The choices in the poll are:

A republic with a non executive president along the style of India, Ireland, Germany or Iceland, where the incumbent has no political power and acts only in a ceremonial role;

A republic along the French, American, South African, Pakistani, style where the president has executive power;

A monarchy shared with the UK, where Elizabeth I, is head of state, followed by her successors, ie Prince Charles, then William, etc as in other Commonwealth countries;

A monarchy where the King/Queen invited to take the throne is a current member of the UK royal family...eg, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Prince William, etc;

A monarchy with an invited King/Queen from another source, eg, another royal house in Europe or elsewhere, or from amongst the population of Scotland.

Of course there are other possibilities, but not ones likely to be of interest in a modern western society.

So, I’m asking the readers of the blog to give some mature reflection to the question (it is one that we will have to face at some time in the future), and to vote!

(This article, and the accompanying poll is a collaboration between Munguin and Tris.)

The House of Gaffes

The House of Windsor? How very British that name is. Thanks very much George V for thinking about the new name of your progeny when the name Saxe-Coburg Gotha became uncomfortable. Based on their recent performance, I have a suggestion for a new name for this august and noble institution: how about the House of Gaffes?


The latest gaffe is of course Prince Edward, or to give him his full title: His Royal Highness The Prince Edward Antony Richard Louis, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty. But that’s quite a gobfull so lets call him Eddie Gaffe. He was off on a junket to Oz where he rather tactlessly put his foot in his mouth on air when talking about the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. According to Eddie the risk that you might die while obtaining a DOEA is part of the thrill for young people and was a reason for the initial success of the scheme here in the UK.

Of course last week we had Andy Gaffe or His Royal Highness The Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Canadian Forces Decoration, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, telling us that in the scheme of thing bankers bonuses were minute and that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. He was also concerned for non-dom millionaires (ie his golfing mates) when the loop hole allowing them to pay nothing despite living here is closed.

You might very well ask what exactly gives these people the right to go around spouting the biggest load of hot air that rumbles in their bellies. It’s quite simple really they are related to the Head of State. I remember a mini outcry on the blogosphere not so long ago when it seemed that President Sarkozy’s son might get preferential treatment because he was the related to the head of the French State. Words like “emperor” and “nepotism” were bandied about. It seemed it was only unreasonable that this sort of disgraceful preferential treatment should occur in a foreign country, that is nothing to do with us, because they were.... errr..... foreign.

So are Andy and Eddie not getting preferential treatment because they were born into the House of Gaffes?

Isn't His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Great Master and First and Principal Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Chief Grand Commander of the Order of Logohu, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Canadian Forces Decoration, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, or as he would like to be, George VII, going to be getting the top job in the nation because he is the eldest son of the Head of State?

If this is not all the greatest argument for a republic what is?