FREEDOM!!!! [4]

There is  a huge difference between supporters of a party- joe bloggs, not MP's, not MSP's or spokespeople but just folks on the internet, and the words of one of the leading academics in the country.

Every single party has people who vote for them who are idiots and who say stupid things online, and no party can be held responsible for the actions of the millions of individuals who voted for them, but more should be expected however of people in positions of influence.

Starkey has a reputation for not having a filter, he insults everyone equally.

My problem with Starkey is not that he says insulting things, but that he is taken seriously when he does because of his position as a historian, even when, as in this case, his words actually display historical ignorance.
I find that depressing on a number of different levels.

I think everyone rising to a position of power makes at least one light hearted comment which is taken by a shit storm before they learn how careful they have to be.

He is no young thing making his way in the world, he has been in this game more than long enough.
And whilst when you read comments like the above its easy to dismiss him as a mad old crank, he is taken rather more seriously by others and is a powerful speaker to lots of groups, like the anti-EU Bruges group or giving lectures to the Tory party and using historical precedent to influence present policy.
And when he is making historical documentaries he comes across as entirely credible and authoritative and informed, which only makes the sort of outbursts I note above all the more dangerous.

Speaking to the Bruges Group-



Docu on Elizabeth I-



Lecture on Monarchy to Cambridge University-

He is obviously super intelligent, it makes you wonder why he says the things he does. I remember at the ceremony for king Richard he was openly sarcastic and withering about the affair, saying it was gruesome pageantry (he may have a point). He obviously doesn't give a shit and just says what he thinks no matter how offensive. Just as he may have a point, no matter how far fetched, about nationalism.

As a historian he should be very aware of the dangers of comparing two events in time and place and ignoring the massive historic differences between them.
Its not that he seems ignorant of the differences, its that he seems to wilfully ignore the differences in order to further his own political philosophy, a philosophy which I find distasteful and often racist.

I just listened to the last of those Starkey videos, as I hadn't actually seen that one before, might interest Americans on here as there is a lot on how the US system is a monarchy.

its not racist to call Salmond a Caledonian Hitler. He has also been compared to..



. . .Kim Jong-Il!

Another Conservative peer, Lord Forsyth, also took a swipe at Salmond, focusing on his wish to give the vote to 16 year olds:


Only nine countries in the world give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. They include North Korea and Cuba, which also have leaders with a high opinion of themselves.

. . .Genghis Khan!

Kevin McKenna was damning with faint praise in the Observer in May:


The first minister is a splendid politician and has his heart in the right place, which is reassuringly left of centre. Yet he is displaying signs of the early onset of Genghis syndrome, where, having conquered one area of land, he doesn't know when to stop. In Glasgow, he handed down one of his ukases by virtually telling the Labour council what buildings they should and should not be pulling down. At this rate, he'll have reached Warsaw by next spring.

. . .Nicolae Ceausescu!

Over at the FT Alphaville blog, Neil Collins referenced Romania's last Communist leader:


Alex Salmond looks smug as a bug right now. His popularity in the Scottish polls is approaching that of Nicolai Ceausescu when he was running Romania.

. . .Nero!

Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie got historical on October 2010, when she said that listening to Salmond was like listening to:


...some latter-day Nero strumming out Gaudeamus igitur on his fiddle while tongues of flame reach out to our universities.

maybe a sense of humour is in order?

I don't really see what that has to do with it- those are just examples of political opponents trying to get a dig in and create a narrative that favours them, and the attacks are all personal and aimed at an individual.

What Starkey is saying that the SNP in its entirety, its members, activists and importantly its voters (a very large section right now of the population) an even anyone outside Scotland who sympathises with them are acting for reasons of nationalism first and foremost based on blaming one group (the English in this case, Jews for the Nazi's) and one historical event (Treaty of Union, Treaty of Versailles for the Nazi's), and that it is comparable to that of the social democracy of the Nazi party and the ideas of the German people in the build up to WW2.
A picture of modern Scotland which doesn't bear any scrutiny.

I don't think any Americans are unaware that our government is basically the tweaked British constitutional monarchy.

I think the more interesting point is that all human institutions are basically monarchies. Business CEOs and the like. Even if the monarchial power is elective and temporary, there's still always a head.

I only planned on listening to the first 10 minutes of his monarchy speech but haven't been able to pull myself away.

This year in Scotland humanist led weddings are set to take over as the more popular form, ahead of religious ceremonies.
Oddly I only discovered today they are not legal in England and there are no humanist weddings there

A humanist wedding is a nice idea but, this country still has its "caveman" attitude to a lot of things. I like the idea of a Humanist funeral too, (tho Im not keen to attend mine )

that's just silly. registry office weddings are humanist. if you really want them to be.

Poor show from Buckingham Palace today
The Palace briefed the English press on a story saying that the devolution of some crown estates to Scotland meant the Scots would not be paying up their full share towards paying for the monarchy- turns out its a complete non-story, which the Palace must have known when they made their briefing. So why do it?

Well could it be something to do with bumping another Royal story off the front pages- the one where the Queen moves out of Buckingham Palace, whilst we the austerity struck plebs cough up a minimum of 150 million to pimp her crib for her.

Burying a bad news story with a sensational one is nothing new- but the Monarchy started out and remained throughout the referendum popular and the popular choice to remain monarch in the event of independence- but then right before the vote the Queen intervened via the press, saying that Scots should think very carefully about their future- this was seen by many to be a breach of her impartiality and to be trying to effect a No vote.
Whatever the truth of it it did not go down well here and dented that popularity, then after the NO vote Cameron leaked to the press that the Queen 'purred with joy' at the outcome- and that didn't help the Crowns popularity at all- now they are using the SNP in made up sensational news stories to bury their own bad news.

I don't know who is in charge of their tactics at the Palace but they don't seem to know the harm they are doing to the image of the Monarch as impartial Head of State. And without that impartiality there is no place for a monarch in the modern world.

actually the money to 'pimp her crib' will probably come from the 15% of the crown estate cash they get each year. the rest of the cash goes to the government. the debate isn't that its costing a fortune, because restoring the Houses of parliament will cost way way more, billions instead of millions more. Its got nothing to do with bumping another royal story.

What's that you guys always say about the monarchy being above politics and thus not really being undemocratic?  Right. It's only going to get worse once Charles takes the throne, given his track record so far.

Then what explains what happened?
Two days ago the Royal Palace calls in select members of the English press- those which are hostile to the SNP and Scotland in general in fact, and brief them that the SNP are planning to withhold 1.5-2 million of its share of the money from the Crown Estates.

Now there are two things here the Palace must have known-

one the Scotland Act explicitly states that Scotland cant cut itself a deal which is to its benefit if the cost has to be picked up by the rest of the UK.
So Constitutionally the SNP don't have the power to withhold the money, even if they wanted to.

Secondly the Crown has been deeply involved in all the negotiations over the transfer of Crown Estates to Scottish control- they know all the terms.
So they knew when they made the briefing the story was nonsense.
Today in response to the story the Palace is saying the figures mentioned are purely speculative.
Are you telling me they just realised that today? Because they never told the press anything was speculative.

They also had the story released on the same day as they were announcing the cost of the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace and the publishing of the Queens annual income.
I don't think its a coincidence.

Even some elements of the press, such as the New Statesmen are openly questioning why the Palace fed the press a non-story they knew was a non-starter.

Eldo that's the nub of the matter- a monarchy can only function in our system if it remains at least publicly, out of politics. If it doesn't then we may as well elect a Head of State who is a proper politician.

True, what the monarchy does is keep the Head of State power out of politicians hands. It's flawed and ridiculous, and built on shaky historical founding ill suited to the concept of modern democracy, but it keeps our politicians politicians, not Kings.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Eldo that's the nub of the matter- a monarchy can only function in our system if it remains at least publicly, out of politics. If it doesn't then we may as well elect a Head of State who is a proper politician.

No one who pays even a little bit of attention to the royal family can believe that they're not involved in politics.  Constitutional monarchy a bad joke.

Bluebottle wrote:True, what the monarchy does is keep the Head of State power out of politicians hands. It's flawed and ridiculous, and built on shaky historical founding ill suited to the concept of modern democracy, but it keeps our politicians politicians, not Kings.  

Exactly what is the power of the head of state that you want to keep away from politicians?  Ostensibly, constitutional monarchs are supposed to be figureheads.  They're by definition basically powerless.  If you openly admit the reality that the monarch wields actual political power, then you've compromised the notion of democracy in theory as well as in practice.

Well, in Norway the Monarch actually sits as head of the executive branch of the Government in council. But his political power is non-existent. We have a young, highly symbolic royal house though. And, like, I'm the first to say it's a ridiculous antiquated system, but politicians make bad Heads of State in my opinion.

You Americans at least partly solve it by limiting the Presidents power without support of your parliament, but it still puts far to much power in the hands of one person for my taste. And it is not really helpful in solving the important tasks of democracy. Representing the will of the people.

well I have to compliment you on your spin tactics. here is what the New Statesman actually said.

''So, whether Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP want to break up with the Queen or not is irrelevant – under the current system, they can’t. But that isn’t going to stop the monarchy becoming a political football as the devolution and independence debate rumbles on. As the SNP grapples with its new status as a party of government in Holyrood and the third-largest group in Westminster, it has to find new ways in which to burnish its anti-establishment credentials. Taking on the Queen is just the start.''

Bluebottle wrote:True, what the monarchy does is keep the Head of State power out of politicians hands. It's flawed and ridiculous, and built on shaky historical founding ill suited to the concept of modern democracy, but it keeps our politicians politicians, not Kings.  

Exactly what is the power of the head of state that you want to keep away from politicians?  Ostensibly, constitutional monarchs are supposed to be figureheads.  They're by definition basically powerless.  If you openly admit the reality that the monarch wields actual political power, then you've compromised the notion of democracy in theory as well as in practice.[/quote]

Oh, I was responding while you edited. I think the focus on putting democratic power in the hands of a single person goes against the very ideals of democracy. I think the best democracies are the ones with strong parliaments, that hold the executive branch of government to task. Where as many opinions as possible are heard, listened to and represented in the decisions made. A system that strives to put power in the hands of one person works against that.

Now, that's all opinion of course.

I didn't mention that bit Figg because it doesn't relate directly to the story that as briefed, it is speculation on the future- one I think is unfunded, as their own piece notes in its opening the SNP position has always been an independent Scotland with the Crown as Head of State as it is in Australia or Canada, or any other number of countries.

What the New Statesmen say directly about the briefing is-

'Except, of course, it isn’t what it seems. A very efficient briefing operation by the palace got the story on the frontpages the same day that news of the £150m refit required at Buckingham Palace made headlines – Nicola Sturgeon might be a raving republican for all we know, but this isn’t her doing.'




Eldo- I'm with Blue on this, whilst I have trouble with aspects of Monarchy it better than a politician doing the job.
Another useful advantage when you get a genuinely clever one, like the current Queen, is that she advises the PM every week. Though they dont have to listen.
The current monarch has done this since Churchill- it gives her a unique perspective and makes her an invaluable source of help to new PM's or during times of national crisis.

Nor should you undervalue the monarch ability to rally the nation in bad times, as a symbol they are very potent in a way a politician with affiliations first to a party never could inspire. The Monarch belongs to the land, is the land. The King and the Land are One as the legends say.
When the monarchy act at such times they do as a symbol of the very land and its people, regardless of political persuasion.
Thats a very powerful tool in the society box.
America threw the baby out with the bath water in my opinion and tries to patch up the difference with limitations placed n the President. But it seems a system prone to periods of enforced inaction.