Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
Namaste wrote: »
It depends on what you call 'success'. There's economics and distribution of economics. .
What I'm arguing is that I think any monarch is unnecessary and it doesn't make a country better or worse, there are so many factors. I was replying to your comment on arguments for Republicanism failing. I see our monarchy as one of the many wastes of cash and time in this country. .
I come from Wales originally and I don't think I met many people who gave a toss about them to be honest
That's just gobblygook. However, attempting to decipher what I think you mean I think you are saying that countries with economic inequality are not as succesful as those with greater equality, (I assume you are talking inequlaity not distribution of economics, which is a bit like say distribution of histories or distribution of physics as economics is the study of the economy)
Your firstly arguing it doesn't matter "it doesn't make a country better or worse"
then less than 20 words later you are saying it does matter "I see our monarchy as one of the many wastes of cash and time in this country" which seems a case of trying to have you cake and eating it.
Especially as the waste of cash is one of the weakest arguments given it costs 62p per person http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329 and most of those costs would have to be met anyway (assuming you're not going to let places like Buckingham Palace fall into disrepair and you're going to have a head of state who meets foreign leaders).
the waste of cash is one of the weakest arguments given it costs 62p per person http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10507329 and most of those costs would have to be met anyway (assuming you're not going to let places like Buckingham Palace fall into disrepair and you're going to have a head of state who meets foreign leaders).
Namaste wrote: »
How is it 'gobbledygook?
You tend to use the term 'success' ambiguously. I was using the term 'distribution' to mean 'distribution of wealth' which would be considered a hallmark of equality? You talked about the USA being successful and earlier referred to some countries in Scandinavia. The USA's wealth inequality for example, is one of the highest in the world's bigger economies.
Whether a country has a monarchy or not, does not make a huge difference alone, as other factors, such as economics, the role of religion, aspects of the state make a difference too. It's not about isolating in absolute, whether or not a country is made better in entirety, by a monarch (as it appeared you were getting at, when you referred to Scandinavian countries and said republicans can't provide an alternative).
One of the many wastes of cash, but I'm not so naive as to think if we got rid of the monarchy tomorrow, we'd have a happy society and no poverty. I just think it's a waste of cash, just as I feel politicians shouldn't get second homes, the Trident replacement is a waste of cash and so on...
Removing a monarch tomorrow could direct the cash in to building hospitals, or it could line the pockets of businessmen or be put in to waging a new war... Again, it depends on how its distributed (does that make more sense?).
re Wales: The survey was of almost 1000 people. What kind of people would be taking part do you think? Is this kind of research more likely to attract participants from an affluent part of Monmouthshire, or from a more deprived area such as Rhyl? I'm only speaking from my own experience, of people in a working class area, granted...
If I could have my 62p spent on an unelected head of state, or to have that 62p put towards helping somebody from a less affluent background, or with a health condition, or to schools, I know where I'd put it...
Even though it's 'only' 62p, it all adds up. It's money at the end of the day and whilst it won't put most of us out of pocket, it still could be better spent elsewhere. The queen has a £310 million fortune, around £100 million worth of art and is number 262 on the Sunday Times Rich List!
I don't understand why people are happy to pay any money to her... I'd at least rather give my cash to an elected head of state of my choosing, or anybody's choosing if they were elected.
I see the Queen as not a great part of the problem, but one of many problems, as I've said before... I won't fly the flag of republicanism, or lick her arse either.
Indrid Cold wrote: »
Are you saying that if it was called "The United Republic's* armed forces" instead, you wouldn't be in it?
* Would it be called "kingdom" without a monarchy?
G-Raffe wrote: »
I think tyou missed the point, i swore an oath to the queeen and my country, it cant be argued whether i would be in an armed forces if the name was changed, it still stands that i have sworn my oath.
Fiend_85 wrote: »
All her power is theoretical.
Miss_Riot wrote: »
Huge waste of money on both fronts...
I'd much rather be a republic
*thinks the idea of the republic of miss_riot sounds awesome*