If Oliver Cromwell’s Lord Protectorate republic had survived to modern times and evolved into a president and parliament democracy would we be better off?

 

Voters could put the opposite parties into the presidency and parliament meaning that one party and its agenda couldn’t persist for decades at a time. Would there have been more consensus politics and would the worst excesses of Thatcherism and Blairism been reigned in?

tbh its all conjecture, we will never know, just speculate.

Perhaps with The Levellers (not to be confused with the anarcho-folk-Punk band of the same name, The Levellers as in the radical fathers of British democracy who through the New Model Army fought for the common man's ineterests) and the likes of Honest John Lillburn or Thomas Rainsborough in charge... Cromwell was nothing more than a tyrant and a butcher who betrayed the movement he helped create and destroyed the New Model Army, he was every bit as bad as the Monarch he replaced.....

 

This country would undoubtedly have been far better off under the Levellers and the New Model Army, concepts such as democracy, votes for all and universal suffrage would have come a lot sooner, women would've had infinitely more rights sooner as well, and it would overall have had led to a far more sophisticated system of democracy and justice without antiquated class privelege or bias.....

Parties to fight for the common man's interests - isn't that Communism/Labour? Look, how they turned out.

 

In Scotland we'd have been better off. The Union wouldn't have happened. There would have been no need for the Jacobite rebellions, no Highland clearances and no oppression.

 

The parliament down south run by a party we didn't vote for wouldn't have squandered Scotland's oil and gas resources and we wouldn't be harbouring nuclear subs.

 

 

 

There isn't a republic in the world I'd prefer to the monarchy.

Parties to fight for the common man's interests - isn't that Communism/Labour? Look, how they turned out.

 

In Scotland we'd have been better off. The Union wouldn't have happened. There would have been no need for the Jacobite rebellions, no Highland clearances and no oppression.

 

The parliament down south run by a party we didn't vote for wouldn't have squandered Scotland's oil and gas resources and we wouldn't be harbouring nuclear subs.

There isn't a republic in the world I'd prefer to the monarchy.

 

The Levellers/New Model Army supported Parliament, WTF does that have to do with Stalinism (which is what you're talking about...).... ? You nothing about history....

 

Howabout you actually do a little research on The Levellers/Thomas Wainwright/John Lilburne before spouting ignorance.....?

 

There isn't a republic in the world you prefer to a monarchy????? Are you for real??? So, what do you think that a modern Scottish state is gonna be then...? Or are you so utterly deluded as to actually WANT an opportunist little prick like Alex Salmond (or god forbid, Brian fukkin' Souter) being crowned Thane/Lord Protector/King/Laird of Scotland (delete according to what gradiose title Salmond the Egotistal dreams up...), FUKK THAT..... <_< If that were to happen, I'd never set foot on Scottish soil again, EVER...... :puke2:

 

 

It is my understanding that SNP proposals for Independence at the moment include retaining the Queen as head of state.

It is my understanding that SNP proposals for Independence at the moment include retaining the Queen as head of state.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

That's simply ludicrous..... So much for a "free" state then, if Scotland is to be truly independant it has to sever ALL ties surely and become a republic, like Eire..... How the hell does that tally with the fact that the Queen no longer appears on Scottish currency....?

 

The SNP really are just cr@p.... :rolleyes:

 

Well, that's my position, so we'll just have to disagree.

Well, that's my position, so we'll just have to disagree.

 

Well, sorry, but I find it rather ridiculous that Salmond and Co are so keen to sever all ties with Westminster and London Parliament, but hold onto the Queen as Head of State when she's PART of the whole Palace of Westminster hierarchy (what with her giving the Royal Ascent to Parliamentary bills and all).... Absolutely ludicrous and totally contradictory position to take... Surely you can see this....? It would be a bit like the IRA and Eammon de Valera accepting the King (as was) as Head of State when Rep. of Ireland got its freedom in the 1920s.....

 

Salmond and Swinney are just complete morons.... And you actually VOTED for these fukkin' clowns.....? These idiots need to look up the word "independance" in the dictionary some time......

It's impossible to say what would have happened if the monarchy had never been restored. However, I would like us to be a republic. It's not a matter of whether we would be better or worse off (I doubt it would make much difference either way). But we would be more of a democracy if we were able to choose our head of state.

The SNP know exactly what they are doing. Their policy is to keep the Queen as Head of State until such time that the people of Scotland vote otherwise. ie there will be a referendum on the matter once independence is achieved.

 

Whether or not you like Salmond as an individual, he is a shrewd operator. The most important thing to him is to maximise the votes for independence in any independence referendum. By not immediately vowing to get rid of Lizzie he's probably hoping to sway some of the 'undecideds', a fair number of whom may be quite loyal to the Royals (particularly the older generation and residents of Larkhall :P ).

 

I don't believe for a minute the SNP 'high heid yins' are Royalists, nor is the bulk of the SNP membership. Not by any means.

 

However, if (or more likely when) Scotland becomes Independent, the people can then have a separate vote as to what to do with Lizzie. I'd sincerely hope they'd vote to cut ties altogether. But who knows. Look at Australia....

 

Whilst Scotland is without doubt the least 'Royalist' part of the UK, there are still an awful lot of people here who love the Monarchy. An outright vow to scrap the Royals would probably mean none of these people would vote for independence.

 

To my mind, arch Republican as I am, the most important thing is to gain independence. Lizzie will keep for another day.

 

As a side issue, are there any recent opinion polls going around showing the percentage of people in Scotland who want to retain the Monarchy as opposed to the percentage of people in the UK as a whole who want to retain the Monarchy? A demographic age breakdown would also be good.

The SNP know exactly what they are doing. Their policy is to keep the Queen as Head of State until such time that the people of Scotland vote otherwise. ie there will be a referendum on the matter once independence is achieved.

 

Whether or not you like Salmond as an individual, he is a shrewd operator. The most important thing to him is to maximise the votes for independence in any independence referendum. By not immediately vowing to get rid of Lizzie he's probably hoping to sway some of the 'undecideds', a fair number of whom may be quite loyal to the Royals (particularly the older generation and residents of Larkhall :P ).

 

I don't believe for a minute the SNP 'high heid yins' are Royalists, nor is the bulk of the SNP membership. Not by any means.

 

However, if (or more likely when) Scotland becomes Independent, the people can then have a separate vote as to what to do with Lizzie. I'd sincerely hope they'd vote to cut ties altogether. But who knows. Look at Australia....

 

Whilst Scotland is without doubt the least 'Royalist' part of the UK, there are still an awful lot of people here who love the Monarchy. An outright vow to scrap the Royals would probably mean none of these people would vote for independence.

 

To my mind, arch Republican as I am, the most important thing is to gain independence. Lizzie will keep for another day.

 

As a side issue, are there any recent opinion polls going around showing the percentage of people in Scotland who want to retain the Monarchy as opposed to the percentage of people in the UK as a whole who want to retain the Monarchy? A demographic age breakdown would also be good.

 

I understand what you say, but I still reckon it speaks to credibility..... If the SNP wants Scotland to be truly "independant" it means going all the way, or not at all in my book.... And speaking as a total, unashamed Anti-Monarchist, I wouldn't vote in favour of ANY so-called Scottish "independance" party which even suggested to keep ties with the English royals for any reasons; and given the hostility in Scotland to the Royals, I seriously doubt that a lot of people north of the border are exactly happy with Salmond's decision.... So, it all depends on if Salmond wants to lose a few votes by unambiguously saying he'd make Scotland a republic like Eire, or a hell of a lot MORE votes by saying (even if he IS hedging his bets) that he wants to keep Old Liz as the head of state....

 

The Royal Family are a relic of the medieval, fuedal past which frankly has no place in a modern, democratic society.... And certainly no place in any proposed New Scottish Nation.... Salmond and Swinney absolutely need to make this clear..... And to hell with the few Monarchists in Scotland.....

Yes, I did vote SNP on that understanding.

 

My preference is to keep the monarchy because the Monarch has very limited powers as head of state. The royal assent is more or less a rubber stamp. I can't think of any time in recent history that the monarch has used the right to refuse royal assent i.e veto a bill, or the right to defer royal assent.

 

IF a final check of legislation after it's been passed by the democratic government is part of the constitution, then I'd rather see that power in the hand of a politically aware but impartial monarch whom I trust than a President with political baggage or with a limited field of expertise.

 

The sight of Mrs T (and more latterly Tony Blair ) strutting like a quasi-president was enough to put me off the idea of an elected President.

There are still a lot of Royalists up here Scott, particularly in West Central Scotland. And around Balmoral of course. :lol:

 

I found this link the other night which I thought it might be good to re-post. It's all true by the way. The green traffic lights now have mesh guards on them.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...ale-981747.html

 

 

That's the added problem with Monarchy v Republicanism in this part of Scotland. It's not a debate between the rights or wrongs of maintaining a medieval feudal system v. the rights of man. It's a debate between Unionism v. Republicanism (Irish variety).

 

Do you see many Rangers supporters voting to abolish the Monarchy? I don't know. :unsure: Maybe some of them would. They'd need to find new songs to sing at Ibrox though :lol:

My preference is to keep the monarchy because the Monarch has very limited powers as head of state. The royal assent is more or less a rubber stamp. I can't think of any time in recent history that the monarch has used the right to refuse royal assent i.e veto a bill, or the right to defer royal assent.

 

IF a final check of legislation after it's been passed by the democratic government is part of the constitution, then I'd rather see that power in the hand of a politically aware but impartial monarch whom I trust than a President with political baggage or with a limited field of expertise.

 

The sight of Mrs T (and more latterly Tony Blair ) strutting like a quasi-president was enough to put me off the idea of an elected President.

 

As much as I dislike Mrs T or Tony B-Liar, people actually VOTED for them, they didn't vote for a King or a Queen..... And seeing as how all a bloody Monarch does is just sit there and rubber stamp everything anyway, and doesn't actually have any power, exactly what fukkin' purpose does it serve....? It's purely ceremonial, utterly meaningless and belongs to the dark ages when we perhaps did need Monarchs to run things.. But, hey, guess what...? We EVOLVED and grew out of the need for unelected chumps lording it over us.....

 

Do you actually realise what a totally fukkin' SECTARIAN AND RACIST institution the Royal Family actually is....? Phil the Bloody DUKE OF EDINBURGH constantly puts his foot in it by spouting the sort of racist cr@p that we regularly round upon the BNP for saying, oh, but it's okay, it's just Phil innit...? He's a hoot.... :rolleyes: Fukk off..... <_< And Sectarian...?? You betcha.... If one of the Royal Princes decided to marry a CATHOLIC, they'd have to give up their claim to the throne.... I mean, FFS!!!!!! What a load of utter fukkin' MEDIEVAL CR@P which belongs to the bloody reign of Henry VIII..... And this still hasn't been written off the statute books..... And, er, Scotland has how many practicing or lapsed Catholics again......? I'm very much one of the latter, I hate the Catholic chuch, but you 'd better believe I still find that very, very offensive that a British Institution can be so baldly bloody Sectarian and actually get away with it.... There's no way in HELL the Royals would get away with saying William and Harry wouldn't be allowed to marry a Muslim or a JEW, they'd be utterly crucified in the arena of public opinion and the media....

 

If you're Scottish and you like the Royals you're clearly a Blue Nose Orange Lodger aren't you......? :rolleyes: :P

If you're Scottish and you like the Royals you're clearly a Blue Nose Orange Lodger aren't you......? :rolleyes: :P

 

 

Or you run the wee tourist shop next to Balmoral Castle.... :lol:

 

That's the added problem with Monarchy v Republicanism in this part of Scotland. It's not a debate between the rights or wrongs of maintaining a medieval feudal system v. the rights of man. It's a debate between Unionism v. Republicanism (Irish variety).

 

That's because the English Royal Family = Sectarianism mate..... Simple as.... It represents Anglo-Saxon oppression of the Celtic/Irish just because Henry VIII wanted to get his leg over.... :rolleyes: If William or Harry wanted to marry a Catholic, they'd have to give up their claim to the throne... It's still actually on the statute books even after over 400 years... Ergo, Catholics, as people, are still seen as something "lower" to the British establishment.....

Or you run the wee tourist shop next to Balmoral Castle.... :lol:

 

Getting rid of the Royals doesn't mean you shut the whole thing off for tourists though.... Just do with Balmoral what the French did with Versailles..... Turn it into a tourist attraction/museum..... So, they make money off their Royalist history with the added bonus of not actually having any scummy, leeching Royals to actually suffer..... :lol: And we criticise the French..... :lol:

 

Getting rid of the Royals doesn't mean you shut the whole thing off for tourists though.... Just do with Balmoral what the French did with Versailles..... Turn it into a tourist attraction/museum..... So, they make money off their Royalist history with the added bonus of not actually having any scummy, leeching Royals to actually suffer..... :lol: And we criticise the French..... :lol:

 

 

Scott you and my late dad would have gotten along famously. He was the most anti-Royal person I've ever met in my life. Reading some of your posts just makes me giggle because it makes me think of some of his quotes whenever a Royal popped up on the telly. :lol:

 

'Right Mary, here comes Lizzie. You stand up now for the English Queen'

'Oh look, the flag's fleeing in Parasite Manor'

'There he is. Flip the Greek'

 

Etc Etc

 

And the thing is, my mum likes The Queen. Not all the 'hangers on' as she calls them. Just The Queen. :wacko:

 

I got to listen to some great arguments when I was growing up :lol:

 

Maybe you should do a Buzzjack Poll :o

 

Monarchy or Republic? Just a bit of fun as they say. ;)

Yes, I did vote SNP on that understanding.

 

My preference is to keep the monarchy because the Monarch has very limited powers as head of state. The royal assent is more or less a rubber stamp. I can't think of any time in recent history that the monarch has used the right to refuse royal assent i.e veto a bill, or the right to defer royal assent.

 

IF a final check of legislation after it's been passed by the democratic government is part of the constitution, then I'd rather see that power in the hand of a politically aware but impartial monarch whom I trust than a President with political baggage or with a limited field of expertise.

 

The sight of Mrs T (and more latterly Tony Blair ) strutting like a quasi-president was enough to put me off the idea of an elected President.

That's a total red herring. The whole point is that if we don't like a head of state we should be able to vote them out.

 

Many monarchists say they want to skip a generation when Betsy dies and have William as king. But the whole point of a monarchy is that we get lumbered with whoever is next in line, however useless they may be. Republicans such as myself have far more reason to bring personalities into the argument than monarchists. Don't forget, if something happens to William (and under the current constitution that includes him marrying a Catholic), the waste of space that is Harry will get the job one day.