NOT MY KING
A group of republican protesters erupted into a spontaneous chorus of Flower of Scotland, which celebrates the defeat of England’s King Edward II at Bannockburn, to be met by boos from monarchists. Several right-wing, pro-Brexit unionists had gathered earlier as a counter-demonstration.
Holding a handwritten sign affirming her opposition to the ceremony, 69-year-old Lynda Flex said: “This is the height of nonsense. They’ve already spent all that money down in England when people can’t afford to feed their children. Has he no self-awareness?” (The answer, Lynda, is ABSOLUTELY NONE!)
Patrick Harvie was a leading light in the protests, despite being a minister in the government. Bravo, Patrick.
There were, of course some pro-Monarchy, pro-Brexit people there and needless to say the creeps from the Tory Party tweeted a ‘god save the king’ message, so it wasn’t all good stuff.
Huge cause for celebration, Dross?
Celebration of what exactly? A faithless old royal man and his faithless commoner wife? What exactly does the average Scot have to celebrate as they go back to meagre portions of food and pensioners are already fretting about next winters electricity bills?
And does anyone know why the silly old man wears a kilt when he comes to Scotland?
The rest of us occasionally wear them to weddings or funerals, but for nothing else. Yet he turns up here every time bedecked in tartan. Sometimes he even brings his besties with him, and they wear kilts too…
He got good weather for his expensive day out in Edinburgh, for which WE are paying. I’d been hoping for rain.
And it seems that, even if no one else was much interested, a bunch of police or security staff were out to welcome him. When the car went past there were a few people there.
Well, hundreds anyway.
But nearer the church there was indeed a right royal welcome.
Maybe, not exactly all fans.
MummyCon on Twitter wrote: I was there too trying to find Dynamic Earth to take my son too. Can confirm it was mostly tourists and no one really interested but I’m sure they will big it up. Counted more stewards and police than adoring fans
Ok, Charlie, now that you and your old bit on the side have had yet another freebie day out in Edinburgh at our expense, why don’t you bugger off back to your own country and leave us alone.
And take your odious firstborn and his patronising wife with you.
MUNGUIN'S NEW REPUBLIC 
I am a Republican.
‘Our previous union’ is touted as being a union of equals. The United Kingdom was created by the King of Scots also becoming King of England.
King Chico’s coronation in London, when he had an English crown planted on his napper and clutched English sceptre and orb, was really him being crowned King of England. Despite my republicanism, I can see that from a royalist perspective that this is defensible.
However, today, he was being ‘ invested’ as King of Scots. He did not have the crown of Scotland placed on his bonce nor did he actually haud the other ‘honours of Scotland’. Nor did he acknowledge the Claim of Right.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was not present, nor was the Leader of the opposition. Clearly the investiture of the King of Scots is not considered as important as crowning the King of England.
A union of equals????
LikeLiked by 5 people
Until he acknowledges the Claim of Right he’s not King. Simples.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Agreed, but even after that he can still p off to his own country for my money.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Alasdair, as far as I can see, of the other European countries that are monarchies… and that’s quite a lot… none really has anything like they had in England with a multi billion pound coronation. Maybe the Vatican is an exception to that, although their head of state is an elected monarch. But I understand that in the last 50 years that has been toned down and the Pope is no longer carried shoulder high as once they were.
It may be something to do with the risible notion that the King of England is the head of a church, a job for which he has no qualification.
But you know the Windsors, they love a bit of ceremony and as long as it doesn’t cost them a brass bean, they revel in the pomp.
I hope his day and that of his bidey in (because surely being head of the church means that you should stick by their regulations… so in the eyes of the organisation of which he is the head bummer, he isn’t married to her as long as Major Parker Bowles lives) was spoiled by all the people chanting NOT MY KING.
I can accept that indeed in Westminster he was crowned king of England (and possibly Wales) and that they felt he had to have something to cement him as King of Scots. I wonder though, given the fabulous amount that was spent on his English coronation, particularly in these terrible hard times where kids are hungry and old people look forward to a winter of utter misery, they might have decided to do it quietly in the palace.
We already helped pay for the English farago, now we’ve had to pay for this nonsense.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Tris……Yes, apparently the Vatican decided that being crowned with a jeweled tiara and carried around on a portable throne is not a good look these days. Pope Paul VI, in 1963, was the last pope to be crowned at a coronation or to use a papal tiara. Wiki: Pope John Paul II discontinued the use of a throne carried on shoulders in 1978.
The ceremony of installing a new Pope is now called an “inauguration.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_inauguration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedia_gestatoria
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, I thought it had been stopped, Danny.
I can’t imagine what purposes these things serve.
In the case of the Pope, god has spoken through the cardinals when they chose the bloke (and it is, of course, a bloke), so why would you need all the tra la la?
In an ordinary monarchy, it follows that when one of them dies, in that same second the next one gets the job. “The king is dead; long live the king”
The tra la la is all about them having a great time at our expense.
The French had it right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another term for “coronation”…….a tra la la 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, it is. It means nothing except presumably their god’s blessing… Apart form that it’s all about funny costumes and rituals and squirting oil on his Wrinkles…
Now here’s a thought… maybe the Church could pay for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That oil squirting part seems weird BTW. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s all weird, but the oil isn’t just any olive oil that you can buy in your local store… oh no. Not for his majesty.
Here is the story of this oil.
(I note that Mrs Parker Bowles is referred to here as the queen consort and not the queen, by the archbishop.)
Tris
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tris……I think it’s holy oil of some sort. (I don’t see the story of the oil though.) 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is:
“The oil has been created using olives harvested from two groves on the Mount of Olives, at the Monastery of Mary Magdalene and the Monastery of the Ascension. The Monastery of Mary Magdalene is the burial place of His Majesty’s grandmother, Princess Alice of Greece.”
So I guess grown on the Mount of Olives make them holy olives and the oil from them, holy oil, if you like that kind of thing.
“The olives were pressed just outside Bethlehem. ”
“The Coronation oil is based on the oil used at the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, the formula of which has been used for hundreds of years. It will also be used for the anointing of Her Majesty The Queen Consort.”
What a load of fuss about absolutely nothing.
The olive oil would have been put to better us in a dressing for “une bonne salade”!
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tris…..Amazing! Who would have thought that they make such a thing about the holy oil…..LOL.
I wonder if the Queen (Elizabeth) or the Queen Consort (Camilla) also had to partially undress for the holy oil anointing. 🙂
DANNY
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeez, Danny… what a thought.
I think they had them behind a screen… wish they’d kept them there.
Tris
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tris……I agree!
Who knows what actually went on behind that screen….LOL.
🙂
DANNY
LikeLiked by 1 person
The mind boggles and the stomach heaves, Danny.
Tris
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL…..LOL….LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps by 1978 the Vatican had seen this routine by Sir William of Connolly:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Nigel that was brilliant!
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL. Nae wonder, indeed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ah cannae feel ma leg!!” “that’s ma leg, ya eejit…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant.
LikeLike
Not ‘previous’ but PRECIOUS. Bloody autocorrect!
LikeLiked by 1 person
autocorrect or autocrat?
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL It gets better.
LikeLike
🙂 🙂
LikeLike
I like “previous” better 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLike
Why a “Royal Navy” guard of honour with the prominent borrowed (from the maritime republic of Genoa) Cross of St. George? If he was truly King of Scots there would have been only the Lion Rampant. And, recognised by the whole world except England, Charles Edward Stuart was Charles III after the death of his father, James III. Don’t get me started on the Claim of Right: a sectarian cesspit – anti all non-christian faiths, anti atheist, anti secular, and anti all christian denominations except the presbyterian Church of Scotland (including episcopalians and roman catholics).
LikeLiked by 1 person
It reminds me that we had never had a queen Elizabeth, and suddenly we had a second one.
Now we’ve got a second Charlie 3.
But we’re all equal in this great “nation”. Barf!
LikeLike
TBF Charlie one and Charlie two were Stuart Kings of Scots pre union. So the numbers work…
I think you’re aversion to monarchy has been heavily influenced by Munguin, the Grand Archduke et al 🙂 They work you to the bone!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, my historian friend was arguing that sort of thing with me… Charles III in Scotland wasn’t actually crowned with the Stone of Destiny (because the English had stolen it and taken it to London) so he wasn’t even officially as Scottish king.
I quite like the idea that he’s the third, because a lot of people call him Charles the Turd, which is vaguely amusing.
By comparison with the English monarchy, I assure you the Antarcticans, whilst they can be demanding, are at least not pompous, stuck up, greedy, self serving perverts.
Even the Grand Arch Duke and the Emperor Penguin don;t demand that their teddy bears be put back on the bed in exactly the correct order every day.
WE PAY SOMEONE TO DO THAT for the Fat Old Duke of Pork !!!
LikeLike
Err you did lose the snp organised and run Indy 1 Referendum which settled
The Fact .
King Charles is the King of Scotland
FACT .
Mayhap if there ever is 🙄 a Indy 2
And Scotland 🏴 chooses to become a Republic. Untill Then and only then
King Charles is and remains King of Scotland FACT
LikeLiked by 1 person
The title is King of Scots, not of Scotland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 Yep. Truthwhatsthat.
He’s the king of England. I don’t know what he is in Ireland or in Wales, but he’s king of SCOTS here.
Unfortunately.
It’s a pity we are lumbered with their king, because god knows, he’s not up to much really.
Unpleasant, snarly, overprivileged, out of touch, bad tempered…and he comes with that awful old woman in tow.
It’s a pity we can’t trade him in for something more usable… and user friendly.
LikeLike
Pedant 🫵
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wazzat, Niko. It didn’t work.
LOL though I’m wrong far too many times to be a pedant.
Peasant maybe though?
LikeLike
Maybe he meant pendant, I mean who ever knows with niko…
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL LOL. I love Niko!
LikeLike
No Niko, pedantry refers to being overly concerned with minor details; you were just plain wrong.
Its not semantics the kings and queens of Scots pledged to represent the land and its people; Chic hasn’t done that. Nane o’ yer divine right to rule keech, as per the Anglo-European model, applies here.
If you’re going to spout “FACT”, in all its majiscule glory, best check first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There ya go, Niko. I told you I wasn’t a pedant.
LikeLike
I’m surprised that a socialist would accept that some people are simply better, because of birth, than other people., Niko.
But you are almost right. He is king of Scots (not Scotland) for the next few years.
LikeLike
tris you can cal him what u like as long as you kiss his royal erse …😘
LikeLiked by 1 person
After you, Niko.
LikeLike
I heard that BBC Scotland’s coverage ,of yesterday’s royal charade ,was one that went to great pains to emphasise that Scotland is NOT a nation in it’s own right but part of a British ‘nation’……
BBC Scotland…every opportunity , do they as a broadcaster take, to downgrade our status as a nation/country while in doing so they also inadvertently then downgrade (eliminate) the status of England as a nation/country too…..
Their English counterparts in the BBC however never do this when they speak of England……or indeed also the other English media or those politicians who represent English constituencies…..that would be unacceptable…..alas Scotland is considered ‘fair game’ for insulting and trolling (and too for flagrant brainwashing of those in Scotland ,who as yet, have not reached the point of joining the dots in what is clearly a dysfunctional and imbalanced NON union where one nation dominates all others in the news coverage within their UK via politics , sporting events and media)….
The BBC …..never the REAL news where we are just the news as dictated and controlled by where THEY are……we , Scotland within their UK, are way way down in the pecking order of relevance in their UK…..as far as the ‘National’ news, ‘National’ politics and ‘National’ sport is concerned…..that is until the word ‘independence’ is mentioned in relation to Scotland then suddenly we are considered as worthy of some coverage in their news…but not in a positive or informative way…..just trolled and insulted…..or patronised….dependent on circumstances and outcome THEY, media and politicians, seek/hope to achieve…..
A rinse and repeat exercise that has become nauseating …..and intolerable too.
Have a nice day everyone
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet, despite near hysterical anti SNP/Independence headlines for weeks now on TV, Radio, social media & in newspapers the SNP still leads, not by much but still leads. Support for Independence hasn’t waned. Those in the British Establishment who have orchestrated the latest political witch hunt must be angry that the Independence support hasn’t fallen, Labour haven’t overtaken the SNP. It shows that Labour doesn’t have the big support it once had which the BE thought they had. The SNP now have a large core vote which can be built on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed….
What is amazing to me is that under Corbyn Labour lost MP’s in Scotland at the last GE in 2019 and he was considered to be a socialist… YET with Starmer, who is clearly NOT a socialist, the predictions are that Labour will GAIN seats in Scotland in the next GE….
Traditionally Scotland has been considered to be MORE socialist than England…..so why would we NOT warm to/respond to a more socialist Labour leader like Corbyn BUT instead respond , via our votes, to what is clearly more of a right wing Toryfied Pro Brexit Labour party……perhaps many polls being undertaken just now are more to INFLUENCE opinion here in Scotland as opposed to REFLECTING it…..it is said that a day, a week etc is a long time in politics…so too then that must also be the case for a year in politics…. as in the anticipated next GE in 2024…..a lot can happen before then…..and I am sure WILL….as in plenty of time for MORE people in Scotland catching on to exactly who Starmer’s New New Labour REALLY are and too what that will mean for Scotland going forward….as in the new bosses at WM same as the old bosses at WM (should indeed Labour win, as predicted, the next GE)….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Brexit may have had something to do with that, NMRN.
Despite the fact that Scotland voted against it, there were some areas where it was relatively popular, enough to get an unheard of 13 Tory MPs for the English parliament…and make them the opposition in our parliament.
Since 2015 where they lost 40 seat in Scotland, they have had only 1 MP.
Somehow the Corbyn magic didn’t happen here. Maybe because Scots had a left of centre party to vote for in the SNP?
LikeLike
I think, too, that Jeremy Corbyn was perceived in Scotland as not ‘old Labour’ enough. Although he is a sincere internationalist he is also a north London politician and that perspective shapes much of his views on UK/England.
In fact, he is one of these sincere people who thinks England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are ‘all the same country’. He displayed his lack of knowledge about UK/England, when, in answer to a question, he said that ‘there aren’t different laws in different parts of the country’. The question had related specifically to Scotland and Scots Law.
He also suffered from the massive loss of trust in Labour in Scotland due to their eager embrace of the Tories and Tory cash in Better Together in 2014.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed very good points Alasdair….Corbyn’s mistake was perhaps to listen to and rely upon the branch office re info/knowledge on Scotland…who , let’s be honest , are very economical with the truth on what is REALLY happening within Scotland…..plus he, as leader of a UK party , whose own constituency is in another country, is also quite ignorant of matters North of the border…..did he not say in an interview in Scotland, when he was leader, that water in Scotland should be back in public hands…as did the branch office manager at the time…as in one Richard Leonard who stated that “Scottish water should be brought back into public ownership”…..but it was already in public hands……
However one wonders if those SAME voters have now forgiven and forgotten their previous feelings towards Labour, that is if current polls ARE correct or to be believed, in some of them allegedly now considering lending their vote to Labour in Scotland , when in 2019, some of these same voters felt Labour did not deserve their vote thus Labour then as you said “suffered” a “massive loss of trust” in Scotland “due to their eager embrace of the Tories and Tory cash in Better Together in 2014” ….or have they bought into the false narrative of thinking that the only way Labour can succeed in beating the Tories is in them ‘gaining back Scotland’….as if it was something that they OWNED before ?…those Scots should DO the MATHS on that falsehood.
I personally cannot see how anyone in Scotland could think that Keir Starmer was anything BUT a Tory in Red(dish) clothing…..whose main concern is NOT for us in his ‘North North Britain’ ( as Keir’s North Britain is the North of England) but instead he is more focused on connecting with and appeasing more those who live south of the border…..his speech on Education today where he constantly referenced ‘Britain’ ended with him stating Labour would set up a new body called “Skills England”….I rest my case….for now…LOL
Hope you have had a nice day
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Richard Leonard was equally ignorant of how Scotland was run.
I can’t recall how many times at FMQs, Nicola was able to answer his criticisms with a “I agree with Richard, Presiding Officer and I’m happy to meet with him so we can work together to demand that Westminster give us the power to carry out the reforms he suggests” or words to that effect.
On the matter of the seat loss … I remember that Spud Murphy said that he “will not lose one seat in Scotland to the SNP” and promptly did just that. There was indeed one seat out of this 41, that he didn’t lose.
And remember, he still wanted to stay on as leader…. wello, duh, Spud.
LikeLike
“On the matter of the seat loss … I remember that Spud Murphy said that he “will not lose one seat in Scotland to the SNP” and promptly did just that. There was indeed one seat out of this 41, that he didn’t lose.”
Oracularily Delphic that. Innit?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Innit, indeed.
The man is a seer. 🙂
LikeLike
To be charitable to Starmer with regard to ‘Skills England’, that is an acceptable title. Education is devolved to Scotland and has always had a separate and distinct legal framework. Starmer is – correctly -acknowledging the fact that Westminster, while being the Government of the U.K. is also the ‘devolved’ government of the non-but-actual state of England.
It would be up to Holyrood, assuming Labour does not continue to dismantle devolution as the Tories are doing, to decide if there is to be a focus on ‘skills’ within Scottish education.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even before devolution (as part of the original settlement of union) Education was kept separate from English Education, possibly because at that time Education was pretty much tied up with the church and that had been kept separate for obvious reasons.
I think it’s a great idea to try to improve the skills of the workforce and I’ve always thought that we should do more apprenticeships. We did depend a lot on people coming from Europe top do so many trade jobs… The famous Polish Plumber!!!
Nowe we are in trouble because they’ve gone home. Living here as a “foreigner” is too much hassle and often involves being treated like crap.
Scotland should, of course, have done more to encourage skills under Labour?Liberals and under the SNP.
LikeLike
Indeed Alasdair Education is a devolved power and as you say ,for England, it is under the remit of the UK government.
However I find it very irritating that when he is presenting a speech on his party’s mission proposals on education (in England) and too upon opportunity and childcare he switches throughout the speech from matters unique to England to then make references to Britain….and indeed ends his speech with another reference to Britain ” A nation once again, a community. A country where we share a stake in every child, not just our own. A Britain with its future back, united, moving forward, standing tall. That delivers security, backs aspiration, opportunity for all, and believes – truly believes – that the future will be better for its children” or as I heard it Blah Blah Blah…..
Alas I can never be “fair to Starmer” as he is so very unfair to us in Scotland…..you sir are a much much better man than I am a woMAN….something you probably are more than aware of already….LOL
Me bad….always…it must have been my education…..where was Labour when I obviously needed them in MY youth….away on another mission no doubt….one that involved trying to keep Scotland under their control…..also no doubt……
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did he really talk all that crap about a nation once again, with its future back?
Bloody hell, what an old haver.
Britain has never been more divided, at least in my lifetime. Happily he seems to think he has fairy dust and a magic wand.
That’s what happens to you when you join the ranks of the junior aristocracy.
LikeLike
3 years ago, my wife and I were in Dublin and went to The Abbey Theatre to see a production of Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’. One scene was set in a pub/brothel and the clientele started sining ‘A Nation Once Again’. Immediately, the entire audience joined in with gusto and, once the song finished one of the actor’s demanded an encore from the audience! The emotion was palpable, there many with tears of joy in their eyes. The audience accepted us as fellow Celts, so you would be OK, Tris!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL Alasdair. I love Dublin and although I’ve been around a bit I don’t think I’ve ever been anywhere more friendly. It’s on a par with Reykjavik for me.
I’ve not travelled much in Ireland, but if the people of the capital are as lovely as that, can you imagine what small town Ireland would be?
I’d be more than OK there. And to be honest, when we were in the EU I did consider moving there…
The last time I was there was in 2014 and I was wearing YES t-shirts.
That got a lot of thumbs up!
LikeLike
We also visited Belfast on the same trip and it certainly has changed. A fair amount of the sectarianism is still there, but, we did encounter the spontaneous friendliness and helpfulness from people, no matter whether we were in a Protestant or a Catholic area.
With my Glasgow accent almost everyone I spoke to recognised that not only was I a Glaswegian, but that I had a presbyterian background! I am not religious, but, obviously there are some traits which linger!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, it’s good that Irish people are Irish people no matter.
I wonder how they could tell that you were Presbyterian in background, if not in practice.
I wonder what they’d make of this Dundee boy who has also lived in England and in France and picked up bits of vocabulary and
accent en route.
I had recently two lovely neighbours who came from the north of Ireland. They were doctors working here at Ninewells. Lovely people. We had a lot of fun together.
LikeLike
I have a friend from Inverclyde who was brought up as a Roman Catholic and he told of a taxi ride he had in Belfast and asked the taxi driver about something he saw out of the window. The taxi driver replied that ‘it was not a place he would be advised to visit’. My friend had seen something through a gap between buildings which was on Shankill Road, the Protestant heartland.
He thought it was something about the shape of his face that the taxi driver had used to identify his ‘tradition’. I suppose people who lived through ‘The Troubles’ learned to identify small signs which identified possible friends or foes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I suppose there are possibly little signs that they can read. When your life depended on it, it was probably a good idea to be able to suss the origin of an interlocutor.
🙂
LikeLike
Yes Alasdair. I think that’s probably right.
Like so many people in England (and remember a similar thing could be said of Scots about their knowledge of the North and Western isles, or even the Highlands), he really had no idea about what Scotland was like.
I guess he had never even considered being any kind of a leader… and I think he probably knew his own area well enough, but nothing about the rest of the country and suddenly, thanks to Margaret Becket, if I remember rightly, he was thrust into the leadership.
I bet he was just as ignorant of the North of England or of Wales or the north of Ireland as he was of Scotland.
One thing you should never do in Scotland is show some sort of affection for or liaison with, the Tories.
It’s fatal and yes, Labour (before Corbyn) and joined together with the Tories and told lies with them, for UKOK.
At least Gordon Brown told his own lies, and didn’t associate with the Tories.
LikeLike
Cor
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies! I nudged ‘send’ inadvertently.
Corbyn probably knows a fair bit about the north of Ireland because he is a long standing supporter of a United Ireland. Given Scottish Labour’s tolerance of members who are also members of the Orange order, this was probably a factor with some Scottish Labour members.
Corbyn’s colleague John McDonnell actually argued that Labour should form an alliance with the DUP, since the latter has a substantial working class element. Where that leaves Labour’s long time alliance with the SDLP is problematic. SDLP has always been a Republican Party.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeez. The DUP are hard right wing on so many things… I can’t see that kind of thing working.
They were too right wing for Theresa May!
LikeLike
The supporters of the DUP and the other unionist parties are largely from the skilled working class. In other parts of the U.K. and Europe it is this group which formed the bulk of trade unions and Labour or workerist parties.
The Progressive Unionist Party under the late David Ervine who had been imprisoned for activities in support of the loyalist cause who changed his political while in prison and became more Marxist and socialist in his analysis, did, for a time, present unionist voters with an alternative to the proTory historic stance of unionist groupings. Sadly, he died relatively young.
My wife and I saw an exhibition of art and writing by unionist prisoners in Long Kesh (The Maze) at the Ulster Museum in Belfast. These were eye opening in terms of their growing political awareness and the realisation of Tory exploitation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, my Irish mate from the north says that there’s not much choice if you are a protestant/unionist (which his family is), even if you don’t much care for their policies or their dubious ties with terrorist organisations.
LikeLike
He doesn’t think Northern Ireland is one country with GB. He’s very much in favour of Irish reunification. Scotland and Wales though…
LikeLike
Well, I agree with him on the north of Ireland.
LikeLike
I think the most important question here is, “can you imgine this person as PM?”
I don’t think many could imagine Corbyn as PM. He just didn’t look like a PM.
We can disagree with Starmer as much as we like but he looks like someone who could be PM. Most people don’t follow his policy statements but they do know he looks like PM material. That’s a good start and it’s something Corbyn never managed or particularly cared about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr Cameron told Jeremy he had to go out and buy himself a good suit, and then stand up and sing god save the queen. (He wore a rather tatty off the peg suit and wouldn’t sing gstq.)
Having good clothes and singing the anthem was considered prime ministerial… so I suppose you are right.
It’s all about appearances in Britain. Fur coats and no knickers. Doesn’t much make any difference what you do as long as you have a suit that cost half of what ordinary people earn in a year… and you must at least appear to love the queen (the real one, not the pound shop thing they have atm!)
I doubt he would have made a brilliant prime minister. He’d never have fitted in, and probably more than half his parliamentary party loathed him because he was a socialist, didn’t cheat on his expenses and was happy catching a bus. Remember the 1 Labour MP in Scotland who would not be shadows Scottish secretary and so they had to have an English shadow Scottish secretary… and all because he (pretty right wing) loathed Corbyns politics.
In fairness to the man, he made Labour the biggest political party in the UK for the time he was leader. Young people joined in droves. The membership fell off after he was disposed of.
I always thought Starmer would make a good leader. He had the attributes Law degree, surely them a man who could formulate and express an argument. He had a lot of experience and had risen to a senior position within the legal profession in England. I had hoped of him eviscerating BlowJo at PMQs.
But he’s been a huge disappointment. He never really did Johnson down, even given all the opportunities that Johnson’s ridiculous behaviour gave him. He was unspectacular against Truss, who herself was unspectacular, and I’ve not really seen him do anything notable against Sunak.
He makes promises and rapidly breaks them, and he’s not even in power.
I think the UK needs an alternative to the very right wing Tories, and I don’t think he’s offering much of one… although, as he never keeps a policy for long, who knows?
However, looking at his front bench, who else is there? Long Bailie? Rayner? Nandy?
I’d say their best bet might be Yvette Cooper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it was way more than just his slightly scruffy appearance.
He just didn’t have any leadership skills. His behaviour was always more like a geography teacher selling the Socialist Worker at the weekends than a party leader. He was a perennial rebel, unable to build consensus or make compromises. The kinds of things that interested him and drove him politically were quite niche and of little interest to the wider electorate. He just had zero skills of political diplomacy and wasn’t interested in developing them.
Terry
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Terry.
Perhaps I was being a little light hearted with the suit thing… although it does seem to be ridiculously important for one to wear the right clothes in parliament in Britain.
I’m not sure why he stood. He was, as you said, no leader. He’s no real knowledge of the UK outside North London.
I don’t know why Dame Beckett proposed him (although it was probably either a joke or an attempt to discredit the Left and leave it humiliated when he came last).
But he seemed popular within the grass root membership… and he won.
Cameron must have been delighted. And May thought that with him in charge, she would walk all over Labour and turn the majority of around 10 into a big majority to deal with Brexit… Another misstep if ever there was one, as she ended up with a minority government, with a disastrously split part which couldn’t be relied on to vote for her policies and had to get into in bed with the DUP!!!!
So he must have had something… I think that something was an appeal to the young, perhaps less interested in the fact that he wore off the peg, badly fitted suits… or suit, singular… in inappropriate colour.
He caused May to be humiliated, when she had expected a majority of around 100, got a minority, and was obliged to pay the DUP cash, to go into some sort of a coalition arrangement with her.
It was, I reckon a part of the decline in British politics.
Tris
LikeLike
I do not think Jeremy Corbyn expected to be elected Leader of the Labour Party but was part of a group who wanted to ensure that the ‘left’ had a voice in the election hustings.
He was faced with four ‘clones’ who had been programmed to say nothing controversial. They were vacuous and all said the same vacuous message. Corbyn simply said what he believed in his quiet way, deconstructed their arguments – not a hard job, a nursery school child could have done it – and set out his own redistributive vision. And, this resonated with a lot of people and he was elected Leader and the Labour Party membership surged. In 2017 he gave May a real fright and even more so, the U.K. establishment, which included the officials of the Labour Party.
These people did not want the things the proles Brad voted for. If they got them then all the cushy ‘billets’ Labour members craved, including seats in the Lords, would be endangered. To them ‘socialism’, even the relatively mild version Corbyn was proposing, was a filthy word and an appalling prospect. So, as in Scotland in 2014 the Labour Party hierarchy connived with the Tories to destroy its own elected leader.
Jeremy Corbyn did not have the qualities required for political party leadership. He had always been an outsider and had stood for election years before as a campaigner for a range of causes. He has always been honourable.
What Corbyn was saying was pretty similar to what people like Attlee, Bevan, Wilson, Foot, Kinnock and many others had been saying until the mid 1990s.Mrs Thatcher was right when she said that Tony Blair was her ‘greatest achievement’. He and the mendacious Brown removed any hint of socialism or social democracy from the Labour Party.
Their governments were, in fact, significantly redistributive. But they refused to even try to change the Thatcherite hegemony and establish a different hegemony. The failed to set out a vision of a different way of running the UK. In fact, they accepted the way it was run as the way they wanted the UK to continue to be run – as a place of great inequality and privilege. It was Bodger Broon who introduced ‘light touch’ to City regulation, and refused to tax ‘non doms’. He and Blair were supporters of the myth of ‘meritocracy’.
The clue about where Starmer stands is hiding in plain sight : THE KNIGHTHOOD.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicely put, Alasdair.
According to Mandelson’s book on New Labour, it was about getting power.
Of course, all political parties, or major political parties want power.
Mandelson’s argument was that you couldn’t do any good if you were permanently in opposition and that, as a vast number of the population were (thanks to Thatcher) now situated in the prosperous south-east of England, you HAD to win there to win power in the UK.
And to win in the prosperous South East you had to offer them policies that they found attractive… and they did not find old Labour policies attractive.
They included John Prescott, an ex-socialist to keep faith with their traditional voters and he promised renationalisation of the railways to please “them oop north”! (In the end of course Two Jags and games of Croquet rather put an end to that image and he finished off by becoming Lord Prescott.)
So they won, deregulated, privatised and screwed the economy and we got the Tories back. Possibly this time even worse than Thatcher, and more recently worse than anything we’ve ever had.
As for the K, I’ve never understood how a person who considers him/herself to be a socialist in any way at all, can take a titled honour.
I accept that because of the system, it is necessary to have representation in the Lords for practical reasons. It is ridiculous. But it is what it is. They really need to move into the 20th century and get rid of that anachronism.
But why would you accept an honour that changes your name and sets you apart from other people, aside from the necessity to have the title to sit in parliament.
In other words, what kind of person thinks that they should join the ranks of the titled junior aristocracy and leave the rest of us behind, unless it is a necessity to do the job?
SIR Keith and DAME Margaret and DAME Baillie for that matter. Why?
LikeLike
If Labour wants to win in Scotland… and let’s be honest, after 17 years of SNP government most people would agree that a change is due, they are going to have to start to appeal to what Scots want, not what the Red Wall or the Home Counties want.
They don’t seem to see that. Since Scotland dumped the Tories in 1955, you’d have thought that Labour might have understood that.
But no.
I’m pretty sure that the campaign, first against Alex and then against Nicola, has its roots in the British establishment. Viceroy Jackboots, or rather, given how dim he is, his noble assistant, Lord Offal, the guy who bought his peerage with donations and then was put in the Scotland Office to prop his dimness up.
I wonder how much all this is costing the taxpayers.
LikeLike
I haven’t watched the BBC for years.
Even when I had a tv (10 years ago) it was rarely on (and then only for ‘Allo Allo’, Midsommer Murders or Vera.)
I couldn’t stand to listen to Nicholas Winchell burbling on with his tongue you know where.
Probably the one thing Snarls and I agree about… Ghastly man.
LikeLike
If the royal family are held to their own reason for existing (being a shining light to the common people by living their lives to the highest standards*) then surely the current occupant of the throne and his bidey-in have failed there. Together they drove a vulnerable young woman to a mental breakdown and they did this knowingly. They broke their own rules, made worse by the monarch’s claim to be head of the Church of England.
(*And also amassing as much wealth as possible.) And still people bend the knee to them.
One other thing. Since he became king he has appeared in public in various military style uniforms hung with more baubles and gold string than a christmas tree. He has appeared in medieval style robes with funny hats with feathers and god knows what else. There is also the kilt which must appear magically on his nether regions whenever he approaches the Scottish border.
PLEASE somebody take away the dressing up box and hide it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said, Grouser.
They behave like celebrities, but have none of the attributes of the popular celebrities that feature in the pages of the tat magazines… they have no particular talent, for singing, dancing, acting, playing sports, etc. Nor are they good looking, like some of the less talented celebs.
They are of dubious character. Although the palace tries to keep a lid on most of it, most of them have been involved in dubious activities form time to time and Charlie has some very strange friends.
They have no real function in government, because they have no legitimacy. They simply perform (usually ridiculous) functions of the government seemingly with authority (like the journey in private aircraft of Rees Mogg and another two privy councillors from London to Aberdeen and thence to Balmoral in order that the queen could give her permission to dissolve parliament (illegally), when she had absolutely no choice but to agree to Johnson’s “request”, thus making herself a part of his fiddle).
And all for only a few billions a year that could be spent on the thousands of other things that this falling down country desperately needs..
LikeLike
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-snp-westminster-groups-civil-war-continues/
All is not well among the SNP’s Westminster group and this time, it’s not Mhairi Black causing them trouble. Leader Stephen Flynn has today suspended Salmond ally Angus MacNeil from the party after a public bust up with the Chief Whip Brendan O’Hara.
Tension has been brewing between MacNeil and O’Hara for a while but it came to a head last night in the Commons division lobbies. O’Hara is alleged to have been sending MacNeil, the MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, disciplinary notices about his poor attendance in parliament.
But it became one notice too many for MacNeil who, in his latest disagreement with the whip, reportedly seethed ‘You’re a small wee man!’ several times before flinging the whole lot of papers back at him. Oh dear.
But this rather public act of melodrama was not quite enough to calm MacNeil down. Still seething, he then took to social media in a rage to tweet:
LikeLike
Oh dear. When friends fall out.
MacNeil should have stuck to Gaelic for his insults.
I think in honesty that the SNP needs a rest form government. Unfortunately there is no one else.
LikeLike