CON & LAB now level pegging in the GE most seats betting – politicalbetting.com

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Fwiw QM was born in London or environs, seemed to be the preference of poshos, even Scotch ones. Who knows how that fits in with with HYUFD’s ethno nationalist world view.

HYUFD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Fwiw QM was born in London or environs, seemed to be the preference of poshos, even Scotch ones. Who knows how that fits in with with HYUFD’s ethno nationalist world view.

The QM's father was a member of the Peerage of Scotland, as he became the Earl of Strathmore. Much of her childhood was spent at Glamis House in Angus

biggles said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.

I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way
I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.

I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too

Certainly more than Johnson but that would be fairly easy

Boris had huge charisma and interpersonal skills, probably the most of any postwar PM after Blair and Churchill

Nobody who lived in the UK as an adult from 1979 to 1990 would say such an extraordinary thing.

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Lol, ArmchairWarlord, a former Us army officer now popular pro-Russia Twitter cheerleader who has spent the last week trying to spin Russia's capitulation in Kharkiv as a strategic brilliance has thrown on the towel, announced they've stopped posting on Twitter and locked their account.

He's at least slightly more honest thanbthe pro-Russians who seemlessly switched from "Izyum is in no danger, it strategically hugely important and concealed reinforcements will trap the Ukrainians" to "we never wanted Kharkiv anyways" in the space of 4 hours withour an ounce of shame.

I attempted to engage another pro-Russian Twitter guy, but he has now blocked me:

I'd appreciate it if PBers would help me out by asking what offense I committed to get blocked?

(I was, I would note, scrupulously polite.)

He looks rugged. I get a Trumpy 'sat on front porch with a rifle' vibe.

I've looked him up: he does appear to be a real person, so I shall write him a letter asking him why he blocked me on Twitter

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.

I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too

Certainly more than Johnson but that would be fairly easy

Boris had huge charisma and interpersonal skills, probably the most of any postwar PM after Blair and Churchill

Nobody who lived in the UK as an adult from 1979 to 1990 would say such an extraordinary thing.

Thatcher had huge gravitas and intellect and a strong personality and presence but she did not always have the best interpersonal skills, it was her way or the highway and people were often terrified of her!

I think you are confusing interpersonal skills. Boris definitely had charisma and public appeal that others did and do not, but his interpersonal skills as a politician are absolutely terrible - this is a man who blew all the goodwill he had as the winner of a massive majority, and he did it in less than 3 years. A large part of that is about his personal scandals, but it also shows he was dreadful at managing his MPs. He could not longer convince them, charm them, or terrify them.

stodge said:

noneoftheabove said:

Quite confused as to how it is disrespectful to watch the football or strictly or stay in a wooden cabin during this period of national mourning, or for our MPs to do any work for once, but fine to announce redundancies for people who have worked at Clarence House, some for decades, for the new King.

Mercifully we don't have to do this very often and haven't had to for 70 years.

There seems an almost febrile determination among some organisations to be seen to be doing the right thing. The truth is you can't and won't please everyone. Stay open and you're accused of inadequate respect - close and some think you're going too far.

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.

I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way
I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.

He couldn't. Born in England, and 1/8 Scots by parentage. More likely to qualify for Greece.

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Lol, ArmchairWarlord, a former Us army officer now popular pro-Russia Twitter cheerleader who has spent the last week trying to spin Russia's capitulation in Kharkiv as a strategic brilliance has thrown on the towel, announced they've stopped posting on Twitter and locked their account.

He's at least slightly more honest thanbthe pro-Russians who seemlessly switched from "Izyum is in no danger, it strategically hugely important and concealed reinforcements will trap the Ukrainians" to "we never wanted Kharkiv anyways" in the space of 4 hours withour an ounce of shame.

I attempted to engage another pro-Russian Twitter guy, but he has now blocked me:

I'd appreciate it if PBers would help me out by asking what offense I committed to get blocked?

(I was, I would note, scrupulously polite.)

He looks rugged. I get a Trumpy 'sat on front porch with a rifle' vibe.

I've looked him up: he does appear to be a real person, so I shall write him a letter asking him why he blocked me on Twitter

IshmaelZ said:

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Lol, ArmchairWarlord, a former Us army officer now popular pro-Russia Twitter cheerleader who has spent the last week trying to spin Russia's capitulation in Kharkiv as a strategic brilliance has thrown on the towel, announced they've stopped posting on Twitter and locked their account.

He's at least slightly more honest thanbthe pro-Russians who seemlessly switched from "Izyum is in no danger, it strategically hugely important and concealed reinforcements will trap the Ukrainians" to "we never wanted Kharkiv anyways" in the space of 4 hours withour an ounce of shame.

I attempted to engage another pro-Russian Twitter guy, but he has now blocked me:

I'd appreciate it if PBers would help me out by asking what offense I committed to get blocked?

(I was, I would note, scrupulously polite.)

He looks rugged. I get a Trumpy 'sat on front porch with a rifle' vibe.

I've looked him up: he does appear to be a real person, so I shall write him a letter asking him why he blocked me on Twitter

Perhaps you banned him from PB?

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Don’t get queueing to see the Queen sorry

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

IshmaelZ said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.

I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too

Certainly more than Johnson but that would be fairly easy

Boris had huge charisma and interpersonal skills, probably the most of any postwar PM after Blair and Churchill

Nobody who lived in the UK as an adult from 1979 to 1990 would say such an extraordinary thing.

Thatcher had huge gravitas and intellect and a strong personality and presence but she did not always have the best interpersonal skills, it was her way or the highway and people were often terrified of her!

Other politicians. Her staff were very fond of her - while she may have treated her Cabinet badly she treated secretaries etc very well and was well liked by them who were more used to being treated indifferently at best.

Crawfie!!!

HYUFD said:

WhisperingOracle said:

King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.

I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.

I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way
I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.

He couldn't. Born in England, and 1/8 Scots by parentage. More likely to qualify for Greece.

He's a big fan of Greece. In a Greek newspaper on one of his visits last year he said it was "part of his identity". Carolos, as they call him there.

BlancheLivermore said:

I want to know why The Royal Welsh's "goat" has a tail that points down

It looks like a sheep to me

If you think it's a goat because it's not all woolly, then you need to play sheep or goat
https://act.heifer.org/sheep-or-goat/

JACK_W said:

GIN1138 said:

Can't Charles abdicate and the seemingly unflappable Camilla ascend in his place?

It's more likely that Putin applies as a candidate for Mr Gay Fisting Champion of Russia

CarlottaVance said:

Flight tracking statistics regarding the final flight of Queen Elizabeth II

In the minute after the transponder of C-17 ZZ177 activated, an unprecedented 6 million people attempted to follow the flight….

70 years after her first flight as Queen aboard the BOAC Argonaut “Atalanta,” Queen Elizabeth II’s final flight is the most tracked flight in Flightradar24 history.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1569755794375065602

Theuniondivvie said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Theuniondivvie said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.

I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way
I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.

He couldn't. Born in England, and 1/8 Scots by parentage. More likely to qualify for Greece.

He's a big fan of Greece. In a Greek newspaper on one of his visits last year he said it was "part of his identity". Carolos, as they call him there.

I’m getting the impression Chuck is a big fan of wherever he is at any given moment, duff writing arrangements apart. He’s gonnae come a cropper at some point, ‘Hello Barrowlands, I love you all!’ when he’s at Covent Garden.

Well, yes and no. He's always talking about Greece as "the land of his father's birth" when he visits there, and has also visited Mount Athos about a hundred times. I think the key person there was his grandmother who turned up from Athens, chainsmoking and having become a Greek nun, in Buckingham Palace in 1968.

I can see she would have been a breath of, er, fresh air. Was she the one that did good works saving people from the Nazis?

rottenborough said:

Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
2h
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet in Uzbekistan on Friday and discuss trade as well as sales of Russian fertilizers and mutual food supplies, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

==

Anyone else pissed off that one of our absolute key Commonwealth countries is dealing with Vlad?

WhisperingOracle said:

Theuniondivvie said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Carnyx said:

biggles said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Dynamo said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dynamo said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?

Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?

Just in Scotland?

Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.

Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!

I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?

I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.

One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.

Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.

What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.

Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough

Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.

Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...

The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England

You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.

King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.

Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.

I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way
I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.

He couldn't. Born in England, and 1/8 Scots by parentage. More likely to qualify for Greece.

He's a big fan of Greece. In a Greek newspaper on one of his visits last year he said it was "part of his identity". Carolos, as they call him there.

I’m getting the impression Chuck is a big fan of wherever he is at any given moment, duff writing arrangements apart. He’s gonnae come a cropper at some point, ‘Hello Barrowlands, I love you all!’ when he’s at Covent Garden.

Well, yes and no. He's always talking about Greece as "the land of his father's birth" when he visits there, and has also visited Mount Athos about a hundred times. I think the key person there was probably his grandmother who turned up from Athens, chainsmoking and having become a Greek nun, when he was at a tender age in Buckingham Palace in 1968.

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Andy_JS said:

"Peter Hitchens
@ClarkeMicah

In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this .
5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1569357341484613633

We absolutely should not.

If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.

Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.

You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.

So what?

Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.

Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.

If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.

"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?

What about it?

Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.

Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.

Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.

I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.

If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.

Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.

There is no such thing as "legal tender" in the UK, but electronic payments are every bit as legal as cash, so any business that accepts electronic payments only is accepting a form of legal payment. Why should they be compelled by law to accept other forms of legal payment like cash if they don't want to? Should cash-only businesses be compelled by law to accept electronic payments too?

"Apartheid system" that is ridiculous.

If anyone doesn't have access to electronic funds then they should be offered help or support if they need it to enable them to do so. If anyone has access but chooses not to use it, then that's their own choice.

I know many people who have been victims of armed robberies. A woman I know had a machete held to her throat in Walton (Liverpool), while she was pregnant, in order for the manager of the business to open its timed delay safe.

If a company in Walton decides they don't want to be at risk of a robbery, so they're not going to accept cash, then that should be their free choice.

And I know far more people who have lost money due to card fraud. Of which there was £574 million worth in 2020 in the UK.

Puts your physical robbery into some sort of perspective.

Yes, card fraud is nowhere near as serious as people getting stabbed or held up in an armed robbery.

People get stabbed for their wallets when they have no money. Again it is a straw man argument.

Its not a straw man argument. Its a very valid argument.

Firms that can put on their doors saying that they do not accept cash and no cash is held on the premises are reducing the risk of themselves or their employees being stabbed.

Your argument is like saying there should be a law forbidding white van drivers from removing their tools from their vans overnight. How people manage their security is up to them, not you.

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

It is the modern equivalent of banning Irish and blacks.

rottenborough said:

Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
2h
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet in Uzbekistan on Friday and discuss trade as well as sales of Russian fertilizers and mutual food supplies, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

==

Anyone else pissed off that one of our absolute key Commonwealth countries is dealing with Vlad?

Gardenwalker said:

Why on Earth is Charles so damn touchy?

IshmaelZ said:

CarlottaVance said:

Flight tracking statistics regarding the final flight of Queen Elizabeth II

In the minute after the transponder of C-17 ZZ177 activated, an unprecedented 6 million people attempted to follow the flight….

70 years after her first flight as Queen aboard the BOAC Argonaut “Atalanta,” Queen Elizabeth II’s final flight is the most tracked flight in Flightradar24 history.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1569755794375065602

I have flown BOAC which makes me a member of an elderly and diminishing club

And BEA and PanAm

Fairliered said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bloody tax dodgers, make them pay. Just think of the hospitals the NHS could open if the Royals paid taxes like the rest of us.

King Charles will not pay tax on the fortune he has inherited from the late Queen, although he has volunteered to follow his mother’s lead in paying income tax.

Under a clause agreed in 1993 by the then prime minister, John Major, any inheritance passed “sovereign to sovereign” avoids the 40% levy applied to assets valued at more than £325,000.

The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-will-not-pay-tax-on-inheritance-from-the-queen

The Crown Estate, in effect, belongs to the government, so that would not be an issue for IHT purposes.

As to the rest, most would be untaxed under normal rules. Country houses that are open 25 days a year, significant artworks, are exempt, thanks to Roy Jenkins.

Farmland gets 100% business property relief, and woodlands get a special light regime.

Ok, so let us sell some of the assets off to help pay down the national debt.

The return on the assets is quite good - why would you sell capital to pay debt?

The Royals don't need all those residences.

Just think how much Trump would pay for Buckingham Palace!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ping said:

rottenborough said:

Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
2h
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet in Uzbekistan on Friday and discuss trade as well as sales of Russian fertilizers and mutual food supplies, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

==

Anyone else pissed off that one of our absolute key Commonwealth countries is dealing with Vlad?

Britain in 2022 is a rather weak country. Our soft and hard power has been in serious decline for two decades. Perhaps there was some inevitability about this (compare with France) but we’ve undoubtedly made some serious defence & foreign policy fkups, too. Iraq2, brexit - and the pointless forever-war with Europe, the slimming down of our armed forces, the departure from Afghanistan.

We’re a weak, shrivelled country compared to what we should be.

Can’t blame India, really. They’re playing the real politik game, looking after their interests. They don’t need to listen to Britain any more.

ICYMI:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/once-britains-largest-colony-india-meets-queen-elizabeths-death-with-indifference

rottenborough said:

Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
2h
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet in Uzbekistan on Friday and discuss trade as well as sales of Russian fertilizers and mutual food supplies, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

==

Anyone else pissed off that one of our absolute key Commonwealth countries is dealing with Vlad?

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Don’t get queueing to see the Queen sorry

IshmaelZ said:

CarlottaVance said:

Flight tracking statistics regarding the final flight of Queen Elizabeth II

In the minute after the transponder of C-17 ZZ177 activated, an unprecedented 6 million people attempted to follow the flight….

70 years after her first flight as Queen aboard the BOAC Argonaut “Atalanta,” Queen Elizabeth II’s final flight is the most tracked flight in Flightradar24 history.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1569755794375065602

I have flown BOAC which makes me a member of an elderly and diminishing club

And BEA and PanAm

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:

Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
2h
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet in Uzbekistan on Friday and discuss trade as well as sales of Russian fertilizers and mutual food supplies, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

==

Anyone else pissed off that one of our absolute key Commonwealth countries is dealing with Vlad?

Yes. I understand India always face several ways at once and try and have their cake and eat it. Same way he gives sympathises over HMQ and then tries to whip up a bit of anger for his own benefit over other British monarchs.

Modi is a nationalist and so we shouldn't be surprised he acts like one.

I don't like Congress or the BJP so I don't know who I'd vote for if I were Indian.

IshmaelZ said:

Guy on Sky wibbling about how loyalty is valued in the royal household. Not any more apparently.

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

King Charles III making another scene today then? 👀

He's the King, he's allowed to beat up on peasants and their leaky pens.

MaxPB said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Don’t get queueing to see the Queen sorry

Yes, it's all very strange but if it gives people closure then that's something.

Leon said:

Fucking love me a bit of Seville. Especially at night

Must be the most unWoke city in the west

First we’re gonna turn your beautiful Islamic minaret into a CHURCH TOWER. Then we’re gonna build an ARCHIVE OF PLUNDER next door

Later on we shall be killing bulls. In a dedicated arena. For fun. Try the octopus and chili skewers. De nada

biggles said:

rottenborough said:

Phil Stewart
@phildstewart
·
2h
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet in Uzbekistan on Friday and discuss trade as well as sales of Russian fertilizers and mutual food supplies, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

==

Anyone else pissed off that one of our absolute key Commonwealth countries is dealing with Vlad?

In the long run, I think actions should have consequences. We’re India to get too close to Russia, why allow it into the regional alliance to protect against China? (A pressing threat to India).

Also: “What’s that Pakistan, you want to place a massive order for all that western kit that just outdid the stuff Russia has sold to India in Ukraine? Help us keep a lid on Afghanistan and you can fill your boots”.

Leon said:

Fucking love me a bit of Seville. Especially at night

Must be the most unWoke city in the west

First we’re gonna turn your beautiful Islamic minaret into a CHURCH TOWER. Then we’re gonna build an ARCHIVE OF PLUNDER next door

Later on we shall be killing bulls. In a dedicated arena. For fun. Try the octopus and chili skewers. De nada

ThomasNashe said:

kle4 said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

King Charles III making another scene today then? 👀

He's the King, he's allowed to beat up on peasants and their leaky pens.

I doubt he's ever suffered the madness of a biro no longer working even though it is clearly still full of ink, the lucky devil.

Gel pens. I tell you, they changed my life mate.