If Scotland gets independence should St. Andrews cross be taken out of the UK?

Posted by: scots

  • Yes

  • No

50% 9 votes
50% 9 votes
  • The UK flag is already outdated as it is. For example, there is no Welsh or Northern Irish inclusion in the flag and in fact the current flag still includes the St. Patrick's Saltire flag (the red diagonal cross) which was an old flag that used to represent the entirety of Ireland (Northern and Republic), a nation that no longer exists. If the flag was unaltered for the departure of the Republic of Ireland, why should it be changed for when Scotland leaves? I mean logically it should, but honestly... it's a nice flag and I don't think it should be changed and past precedent shows it has not when a nation leaves the UK.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
scots says2014-05-07T16:38:23.0195808-05:00
Out of the UK flag sorry
BEASTxKNIGHTx12 says2014-05-07T16:55:19.1898733-05:00
I think it should be taken out
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-05-07T16:56:39.2422128-05:00
Why should it be removed?
BEASTxKNIGHTx12 says2014-05-07T17:00:56.8069964-05:00
Because it was never theirs for the taking and it should be taken out because scotland thought of it first
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-07T17:35:46.1686128-05:00
The people of Scotland will vote 'no'. Simple. An independent Scotland is already a no go and I just want all this to be over with already ffs :/
scots says2014-05-07T18:56:51.2043471-05:00
What do you mean it will be a no?
scots says2014-05-07T18:57:21.8386128-05:00
It will pass
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-07T21:52:30.3106128-05:00
Lol... No comment.
BEASTxKNIGHTx12 says2014-05-08T06:47:43.6212285-05:00
Why can't you comment to scared
alp209 says2014-05-08T07:52:19.0789318-05:00
It should be taken out.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-08T17:09:38.8343988-05:00
I don't need to argue with idiots... Read for yourself: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/ Once Scotland votes us, do me a favour and always remember this conversation lol.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-08T17:09:55.2299988-05:00
I don't need to argue with idiots... Read for yourself: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnicholson/2014/03/05/5-reasons-why-scottish-independence-would-be-an-economic-disaster/ Once Scotland votes no, do me a favour and always remember this conversation lol.
scots says2014-05-08T20:02:30.1461567-05:00
Sure, are you here seeing the support of independence? We can support ourselves no economic disaster. You are saying the cause is lost yet we have many supporters. It is not like we are crazy and don't know the dangers, yet we know we can over come it.
BEASTxKNIGHTx12 says2014-05-09T06:42:40.4527598-05:00
Actually Scotland could survive economically by itself because if england loses scotland they go into a drop of income while scotland can start trade with ireland very quickly so yeah!!!
scots says2014-05-09T13:44:00.0101841-05:00
Aye
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T13:46:26.8052885-05:00
None of you understand how economics work, do you? Lol. Again, Scotland will vote 'no'. Take a bet on it.
scots says2014-05-10T13:47:55.8655164-05:00
I will I am here in Scotland watching it take place and we have lots of supporters
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:17:45.8294682-05:00
I don't think you understand Socialism. Scotland has stated they will use the Pound, even though Collectivism has already been rulled out. Scotland will not have automatic placement in the EU, and the Eu has messed up the United Kingdom hence why we are leaving it and why UKIP will win. You are a plain idiot if you think Socialism will win.
scots says2014-05-10T14:20:50.5490682-05:00
Aye yet we win reenter the EU as any other nation
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:21:58.2997318-05:00
Lol right... Will see about that. I wouldn't get your hopes up though.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:23:25.6828638-05:00
Hell, I'll even admit I was wrong if Scotland chooses to become independent.
scots says2014-05-10T14:23:48.7708638-05:00
The EU said we will not get the present state we have in the EU yet we can reenter as any other nation
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:26:02.5252638-05:00
You can't inter the EU if the EU said you can't join... I'm not going to explain that because I would hope you would already know such common sense. UK failing Scotland ? Highest employment figures Booming economy Salaries overtaking inflation Lowest interest rates. SNP Tearing Scotland apart Using money distributed for the poor, to freeze council tax for the rich Salmond turning neighbours against each other Salmond loving Putin Salmond not giving money to working mothers because it will give tax to Westminster SNP using tax payers money to create a lie paper, rather than spend it on services SNP using tax payers money to fight against releasing a letter saying they would stay in the EU, despite them he fact they did not have one Yes I can see what you mean. Lol.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:29:33.6649965-05:00
The battle of Britain is on the TV, maybe the nats should watch it, so they can be reminded how the United Kingdom is better together. What about iScotland's military? Where's all these debates and talks at?
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:30:08.4436638-05:00
The truth is, Scotland will VOTE 'NO'. Simple.
scots says2014-05-10T14:31:05.3524638-05:00
How can the UK be better united if the people in it are not satisfied?
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T14:32:39.7168638-05:00
@RoyalistTeaParty, "Eu has messed up the United Kingdom hence why we are leaving it and why UKIP will win. You are a plain idiot if you think Socialism will win." I hope to dear god that UKIP will NEVER win a general election in the UK. And I am glad that I think most Britons will not vote for UKIP. Hopefully the Conservatives will be kicked out too in 2015 so we won't have this idiotic EU referendum.
scots says2014-05-10T14:33:02.1184638-05:00
I disagree the Scottish people will not be satisfied until we have our independence
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:33:55.3237965-05:00
Not satisfied? Lol we have 38,476 supporters and trying to leave the EU for causing such a mess. The EU is undemocratic and unaccountable. The European Union is run by unelected, unaccountable elites whose power is vast. They often bring in legislation that has not been voted on in our national parliament, yet supercedes our own laws that do pass through such democratic processes. The majority of employers based elsewhere in the UK want Scotland to remain part of the UK. Why do you think? That's because Collectivism is Socialism!
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:37:07.1257965-05:00
PS: “10 Things You Never Knew About Salmond“ Not many people get close enough to Alex Salmond to know his real character. But a revealing portrait of the man who leads Scotland emerged from a long GQ interview. Here are the ten things we learned about the first minister in the last week. 1. His nationalism trumps everything else. His admiration for Vladimir Putin’s muscular nationalism caused a stir because it revealed Salmond’s true beliefs. He trumpets civic nationalism but sometimes the force that drives all nationalism – political pride in an identity – breaks through. ‘He’s restored a substantial part of Russian pride and that must be a good thing’, said Salmond of Putin. He wasn’t talking about gay pride there. 2. Any deal is worth it for independence. Salmond thinks Rupert Murdoch is a ‘remarkable man’ and cannot see why their meetings cause such a fuss. I wonder what they talk about? Is it a deal to dismantle the remains of the BBC public service broadcasting in exchange for Murdoch’s newspapers supporting Scottish independence? 3. He remains thin-skinned. Salmond told GQ he is unaffected by media criticism. Then the Sunday Post was warned the First Minister was furious about his portrayal in a cartoon. All contact with the paper has been cut off. 4. Self-flattery takes time. The interview took four hours – two hours talking and two hours for lunch. 5. He’s losing his touch if he dismisses Scotland as a ‘nation of drunks’. The old Salmond didn’t commit unforced errors. 6. He looks in the mirror and sees Nigel Farage over his shoulder. Admitting a ‘sneaking regard’ for the little Englander exposed Salmond as a little Scotlander. 7. The Moscow love affair is not one-way. State controlled Russian TV frequently interviews SNP politicians about the break-up of Britain. The story is packaged for Russian viewers as the disintegration of the West. 8. He is a stone off target – having lost two, he wants to be 14st. 9. His foreign policy is a quagmire. The GQ interview previewed an ‘important’ foreign policy speech. But all that emerged was an empty threat to ban EU fishing vessels from Scottish waters as part of negotiations. 10. Secretly he’s ‘anyone but England’. He wished them well in the World Cup but couldn’t say he wants them to win. Mind you he’s a realist – except when it comes to his own chances of winning.”
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T14:38:55.1869057-05:00
@RoyalistTeaParty, leaving the European Union would be very damning for the UK economy. It is a fact that the EU is out biggest trading partner and at its core, the EU is a trade-bloc. Yes, the EU is largely ran by unelected people, however 'the Council' represents the national governments of each member state (which we elect of course), and legislation HAS to be approved by the European Parliament which IS democratically elected by the people of Europe.
scots says2014-05-10T14:39:37.3534354-05:00
Aye but I am not talking about the rest of the UK I mean look a Ireland they were once part of the UK now they are not and they are doing pretty good. Why should the people be in a country if they don't want to
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:45:32.9991237-05:00
Zylorarchy, Britain needs to leave the EU. It costs us £40 million every day...Just to have them impose a host of ludicrous and dangerous laws upon us. We will always trade with others, so those who tell you otherwise are delude. Also financially a benenfit long term,plus it will stop vast amounts of immigrants freely coming here,taking our jobs etc,this country needs to sort itself out before we completely crash and burn. Scots, Ireland is doing good? Lmfao. Its flat broke at the moment, small businesses across the Irish Republic are closing down on a daily bases ,thousands of skilled young Irish workers are emigrating each month and the figures are growing. Republicanism The current political and economic crisis in Greece has left me thinking about the differences between countries that are monarchies, and those where the people are ruled by a republican form of government. Most particularly those where, for whatever reason, the monarchical form of government has been abandoned in favour of ideas of progress and equality. The modern state of Greece was originally set up as a constitutional monarchy, but royalty in that country has had a chequered history. The monarchy has been abolished around four times in the last century, and one King had the misfortune to be asassinated. The last abolition was in the nineteen seventies. At the moment there is no immediate prospect of a restoration. King Constantine II lives in exile in London, and his former subjects are starting to tear the country apart.Now I am not saying that the restoration of the monarchy would repair the greek economy, but it is arguable, that had it not been abolished in the first place, it would be giving the greek people a focus of loyalty, and a feeling of historical continiuity in their institutions that would give them pause. This is something that can never be got from a purely republican form of government, where the head of state is just another politician. The situation in Thailand illustrates my point. In this country there is an enormous amount of political upheaval at the moment. The opposition are on the streets, and many people have been, sadly, shot in clashes. But despite the bitterness of the divisions there is still one figure in the country that commands almost universal admiration.That figure is King Bhumibol. No politician could ever hope to achieve his stature. Loyalty to the monarchy, and to the person of the king is the one thing that binds all factions of the country together.It is my considered opinion that the institution of Monarchy is the cement that binds the most stable nations together, and the one thing that gives ” glue” to the more volatile among them. People are naturally heirarchical, and tribal in their inner being, and they need to feel they are looking up to the leaders in their society. A royal family provides for that need in the most real way. My study of history has lead me to look at a variety of different countries, and I have concluded that no good can come to a country, or a people when they abandon the natural form of government which is embodied in hereditary monarchy. I will give just a few of them here as examples to illustrate what I mean. Countries where monarchy was abandoned for republicanism. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It may seem odd to some people that I would consider that the USA would have been better served if the founders of the republic had remained loyal to King George III instead of rebelling as they did in 1776, but if they had not thrown off their allegiance, for, in my opinion very dubious reasons, they could have saved themselves the trauma of the civil war. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in the eighteen thirties. The “independent” colonies had to endure another thirty years, and a devisive conflict to achieve the same result. FRANCE: France first abolished its ancient monarchy in 1792. It was immediately followed by a reign of terror in which many thousands died, and then the megalomaniac reign of Napoleon Bonaparte, whose lunatic attempts to conquer the rest of Europe lead to almost twenty years of war, and over six million deaths.The abolition of the monarchy in France didnt even lead on to better material conditions for the poor. Thousands of people who depended on patronage from the royal family and the nobility for employment starved when the “Rights Of Man” was the ruling philosophy in the state. RUSSIA: I dont think I need to go into a lot of detail about the negative effects that flowed from the republican revolution in February 1917 that overthrew the centuries old Russian Empire. I only have to type one word. STALIN. GERMANY and AUSTRIA HUNGARY: The perniciuos meddling of, republicanism obsessed, United States President Woodrow Wilson at the later stages of the first world war, in refusing to make peace with Germany and Austria Hungary, because he wouldnt make peace with “monarchical non representational” governments, not only prolonged the war; but because it lead on to revolutions in both those countries, and the abolition of their ancient forms of royal governance, opened the way for the rise of Hitler, and the scourge of nazism. CHINA: In 1911 the last emperor of China abdicated and the country abandoned the monarchy that had ruled for over two thousand years. The result. Thirty years of civil war, invasion by Japan, and the death of over seventy million people at the hands of Mao Tse Tung, and his lunatic social experiments when the country fell to communism in 1949. Watch the video below, then think. Conclusion. Constitutional Monarchy 100 %. Republicanism 0 %.These are but a handful of examples that I have put together, but there are plenty more I could list.I dont think that Roumania became a better place after the communists abolished the constitutional monarchy, and forced King Michael to abdicate at gunpoint in 1948, nor did Bulgaria exactly prosper when the child king Simeon II was bundled out of the country by the same marxists. Italy is hardly a model of stability in the modern world. It has had 68 governments since it abolished it’s monarchy in a rigged referendum in 1946. Has Laos prospered after the King and Queen were starved to death in a concentration camp by communists in the nineteen eighties? I think not. There is one bright spot among this litany of degradation and historical spoliation. That is the ancient kingdom of Spain. In 1931 the ancient monarchy of Spain was abolished by republicans. Result. Bloody civil war followed by almost forty years of repressive fascist dictatorship. In 1975 the sad trend of history was reversed. Spain once again became a monarchy. It was under the wise leadership of King Juan Carlos that democracy and human rights were restored in that country. Some years later remnants of the fascist regime attempted to take over the country. They were foiled by the prompt and decisive action of the king who ordered the leaders of the army to support the state.It was because of their allegiance to the king that they obeyed. To conclude my essay can I say that I am an avowed monarchist, who will always support a royal form of government, before a republican one any day. But this is not just based on sentimentality or nostalgia for times past. There is real evidence in history that the monarchical form of government is the type that suits best the human temperament, and that is more likely to lead to cohesion in states. I am not in favour of absolute monarchy, as I am also a believer in democracy and human rights. Constitutional Monarchy, as seen still in several lucky European states is the ideal. I just hope that some more of the countries that departed from their allegiances in the past might recieve the blessings of peace that can result from readopting their ancient forms of government. Republicanism is presented as this new and infallible alternative to monarchy by its purporters. Yet despite its glossy presentation, there is absolutely nothing that is automatically better about a republic compared to a Monarchy, for as you will see, any flaw suffered by Monarchy is at the very least, paralleled with a similar one in a republic. For example, Republicans say the main advantage of electing a President instead over having a Monarch is you are able to choose who you choose as head of state, but this is not necessarily as good an alternative as it seems. For one, you lose the political neutrality of the Head of State – creating a disunifying and divisive figure. This is particularly harmful in the event of a political crisis – in such an event, the Monarch – as a neutral figure above politics – will be unaffected and through this offer a country continuity in troubled times. Monarchy offers so much more than a republic ever could. In many countries, the national identity is tied up in a flag or an anthem but in the United Kingdom, our national symbol is a Constitutional monarch. I'm done. You idiots are wasting my time. Bye! :) x
scots says2014-05-10T14:50:47.3488638-05:00
So you agree with monarchies and limited freedoms?
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:54:53.9307865-05:00
Scots, limited freedoms? Lol. In the sense of everyone not having a vote for King or Emperor? Certainly. But I am going to reveal a deep secret of reality — no regime is, can be, or ever has been democratic! Some have been representative, in the sense that a majority of the population has some voice in the selection of their leaders (though virtually none in the policies those leaders carry out). But the larger the area to be governed, the less those votes matter. In reality, power is inevitably in the hands of those individuals and/or institutions in the given society whose money or land give them preponderant influence, as well as those who actually administer the State from day-to-day. With our system, for instance, no one can be elected to national office who does not enjoy the support of one or more special interests —- how could it be otherwise? It takes a great deal of money to be elected, and unless one is a millionaire oneself, how else to acquire it. What makes such a system unfortunate is that, while maintaining the illusion of popular control, the real powers in the State are unaccountable for their actions. Thus, if a congressman votes for a bill disastrous to the interests of his constituents, he will be the object of their ire, rather than the employer of the lobbyist who suborned the legislator‘s vote. Correspondingly, said constituents will appeal to their representative for help, rather than to the company or interest behind him. Thus the real powers-that-be may exercise their power without any responsibility to the populace. It is ironic that this “un-democratic” way of doing business should be the stock-in-trade of all “democracies,” but there it is. Perhaps replacing the House of Representatives with a House of Lobbyists would help make government more accountable. That having been said, what is necessary in government is not “democracy,” whatever that may be, but accountability and responsibility. As noticed earlier, modern Monarchs have felt so responsible they have often given up their thrones rather than shed their subjects‘ blood. I shall remind you, A quarter of the world’s countries are Constitutional Monarchies, and that is the better quarter by a long way. In every part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better than any other system of government, especially Republics. Look at Europe. Britain has 3 and a half centuries of stable democracy. And look at the other long lasting, respectable democracies like the Netherlands and Norway and Sweden and Denmark and Belgium and Luxembourg and Spain (a fairly recent Constitutional Monarchy). Compare that with, say, Germany. Germany has only been a Republic for 90 years and has already had the single most evil, despotic, tyrannical military dictator the world has ever seen. Hitler became Head Of State aswell as being the leader of Parliament, and that made him an irremovable dictator, something that can’t happen in a Constitutional Monarchy. Look at the rest of the world too. What’s a better democracy, Japan or the People’s Republic Of China, under Hu Jintao, a one party communist regime? Jordan or the Republic of Iran under Mahmoud Ahmedinejad? Morrocco or any African Republic like Zimbabwe, under Mugabe? Thailand or the Republic of Vietnam? Canada, or any other North or South American country? In every single part of the world Constitutional Monarchy is better in terms of political stability and accountability. Also, every year the UN publishes a list of the best countries to live in the world based on the quality of life of the citizens. And every year, despite the fact that there are more Republics in the world, the top 20 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top 10 are always mostly Constitutional Monarchies, and the top of the list is always a Constitutional Monarchy. Evidently having a permanent, apolitical Head Of State is a billion times better than having a politician as Head Of State. We can’t fix the past, but we sure can fix the future.
scots says2014-05-10T14:56:44.5812048-05:00
Aye I know just in an absolute monarchy ( which most countries were had absolutely no freedoms. That is what causes revolutions.
scots says2014-05-10T14:57:17.5437935-05:00
And revolutions can have good and bad effects.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:59:29.3560638-05:00
Are you joking me? But really, that's all I'm going to say. Again, Scotland will vote 'no' and the UK will leave the UN. Simple. Do your research and join a economic class or something. God Save the Queen! Bye!! :) x
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T14:59:59.9880704-05:00
EU*
scots says2014-05-10T15:00:52.3579418-05:00
How about god, do not save the queen, and let nations who want to be independent get independence!
scots says2014-05-10T15:02:25.4443352-05:00
If the UK all of a sudden when back to a monarchy that would cause many problems
scots says2014-05-10T15:06:08.6692638-05:00
We are not in the age where king ruled over their subjects and subjects feared them and listened. We also do not think they had the divine right to rule. Today people are more informed an see these countries getting rid of their rulers and putting the people in government.
scots says2014-05-10T15:09:24.9328638-05:00
The enlightenment has already passed and informed people how they can get rid of their king and put in place their own government that gives benefits to the people and not just to the nobles and royalty
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:21:51.4384892-05:00
It seems like my comments are not appearing
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:23:30.8272638-05:00
@RoyalistTeaParty. And yet, despite that "essay", you have to ask yourself why the people abolished Monarchies in the first place. Now I do not have extensive historic knowledge on the level that you do, but it is general knowledge that allows me to know that Monarchs are no less guilty than republics. It is no secret that the history of Europe has been bloody, and full of war. Why is this? Oh right, yes: the Monarchs. Yeah sure you point out that you do not support "absolute monarchies", and no one in their right mind would. But never the less, countries under absolute monarchies were (and are not) free. But just look at the Napoleonic Wars, wars that were led by a MONARCH. I'm not going to go into details but such wars were endless in Europe. Also look at the 100 years War. A century of bloodshed and over what? The French throne.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:23:52.4320892-05:00
Now let us turn our gaze to England itself. Tyrannical monarchs continue to oppress the nation, just like across the Channel. And what happens? The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, effectively stripping the Monarchy of its power. This entire 'Revolution' occurred due to the Monarch's tyranny none the less! You are delusional to think that in modern Britain that the Queen is all power, power lies with Parliament and the Constitution makes it so. I am not anti-Royal, but to say Royals have done all this good is flawed, when they have been the source of so many wars and violence. With so many years under oppressive regimes, is it a surprise that countries got worse without a Monarchy before they improved? No. But, to cite modern day examples, France is ranked 20th in the world on the Human Development Index, where as Britain ranks 26th. Although you could in return argue that Norway (which ranks 1st) has kept the Monarchy, the USA ranks 3rd in the world, Germany ranks 5th and Ireland ranks 7th. Of course you could argue I have missed out some nations and yes they DO have Monarchies. My point? Your point seems irrelevant that in the modern day world a country NEEDS a Monarchy. The fact is though that all of the countries with HDI, have either NO Monarchy or one that has little practical power. Whether you like it or not, many Republics are higher than the UK. A Monarchy is not a bad thing, but certainly IS NOT NECESSARY AND THE USA CERTAINLY DOES NOT NEED ONE (or ours/the British one as I believe that is what you preach).
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:24:14.4904892-05:00
Let's just compare Britain and the USA. The UK has: more crime, more poverty, worse education, a vastly poorer health system (although granted it is free) and generally poorer living conditions. There is a reason why revolutions happened. Now, to the EU. Wow. Yet again, someone blinded by the anti-EU propaganda. What part of the EU is our largest trading partner do you not understand? Yes trade COULD still exist with Europe but we would still have to agree to EU trade laws in order to trade with any EU countries. Oh, and our largest trading partner in the EU is Germany, one of the most powerful EU countries. Personally, if I had to abide by an institutions laws, I would prefer to at least have a say in how said laws are written. The fact is, the world is in recession and perhaps being in the EU is not such a great thing at the moment. But consider the future, when we are in proper growth and have recovered. It will be most ideal then to have a trading bloc to, oh I dunno, trade with? Without fear of protectionist measures?
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:25:47.9356638-05:00
And it's more than that. Humanity NEEDS to unite, not divide more. The idea of patriotism is getting outdated. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but the world is in crisis. Global Warming, resources, oil, food shortages... There are many, and if we as a species want to pull through, unification is what we need, not isolation. UKIP are just a racist, right wing, conservative party who probably are still under the impression we go to Church every Sunday, when in fact Atheism will soon be the majority "religion", the last thing we need is them in power.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T15:28:19.3024638-05:00
I already told you guys, I'm done trying to teach you... You idiots are blind to everything I say so it would be pointless to continue. Again, Scotland will vote 'no', and the UK will leave the EU. Now, once all those stuff do happen, you will see I'm right about everything I've been trying to tell you. Bye now! Good luck!! :) x
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:35:40.7677626-05:00
You are blind to believe Euro-sceptics... All you have taught me is that although you at first, can seemingly make good arguments, you resort to name calling and give up when we argue against your points. There was a reason why all those revolutions happened, and a reason for why the EU was created.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T15:45:34.0821494-05:00
Why would I argue with a person all day when I know I'm right? Lol... It's pointless.... That's why I'm retreating and you will see on your own.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T15:47:16.8563258-05:00
Again, thank you for the chat... If I'm wrong, even though I'm not, I will admit it..... But as of now, I don't have the time to sit on my computer all day or night. Bye!! :) x I have a life to resume to.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:49:35.5884206-05:00
If you unwilling to argue and defend your points, why are you on a Debating website?
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T15:55:11.1551077-05:00
Old account... Will be deleting this account soon.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T15:56:17.8793016-05:00
Although if I wnated to be rude, I could just say it's because I don't have to lol ;) x
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:56:52.0138689-05:00
Well then, I bid you goodbye and good luck. And some advice, not to resort to name calling in debates and that's not sarcasm, that's honest advice. It really is not nice and it makes you look like what you are calling us.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T15:58:07.2693060-05:00
I have anger issues, and idiots piss me off so???? I'll try.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T15:59:56.8582689-05:00
Yes, but honestly... Anger in real life does not need to be transferred to the keyboard and, I am not an idiot.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:05:13.4811404-05:00
Yes, you are an idiot lol. Hence why I'm getting upset.... I only joined this site hoping it would help me with my anger issues and my Party itself, but nope... I already had a few people on this site banned and can say that this site is worthless........ Now I must take a different route. But I've said quite enough and made my points clear. Goodbye now!! :) x
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T16:16:37.8557568-05:00
-Sighs- You though arguing would help your anger? If anyone here is the idiot, it is certainly not me, nor Scots. I am sorry but your party is based upon delusions. The fact is that the USA does NOT need a Monarchy at all, nor do they want one. The USA is in fact ahead of the UK in most ways including, as I say: poverty and crime. Although I have referred to "us" as in Britain, I know that the RoyalistTeaParty is an American party, but surely you must have realised that the Americans do not, and never will want the British Monarch as'Head of State'. If you really are Emily Molloy, who is candidate for the party, I must say I am disappointed that you come on here calling people idiots.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:21:24.1693516-05:00
First of all, I created this account to help me argue properly, which I thought would help my anger for preventing it to effect the debate. Second of all, A constitutional monarchy is a government in which the head of state is a monarch bound by the laws of a constitution. Depending on the particular system, the monarch may have either complete political power or else have merely ceremonial duties. The philosopher Aristotle conducted a study of the 158 diverse governments in ancient Greece and recommended a lawful monarchy as the best form of government. Among the potential advantages of a constitutional monarchy are economic growth, low corruption, increased freedom, and built-in incentives for benevolence towards ordinary citizens. Economic Growth: European constitutional monarchies rank very high on the CIA’s measure of Purchasing Power Parity, or PPP. Liechtenstein ranked first, Luxembourg ranked third, and Norway was number sixth. Seven out of the 10 richest countries in the world in 2003 were constitutional monarchies, measured by per capital gross domestic product, according to the Brussels Almanac. More than half of the top 30 countries were constitutional monarchies. The two richest countries in the Middle East, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are constitutional monarchies, as is Japan, the richest country in Asia. Less Corruption: The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty says that constitutional monarchies have less crime on average than countries with other types of governments. Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perception Index showed that the top 10 least corrupt nations on earth were mostly constitutional monarchies. TI defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” The Corruption Perception Index ranks countries based on the perception of corruption in the public sector. It is specifically based on such things as the bribery of public officials, embezzlement of public funds and political kickbacks. Freedom: The Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook explains that monarchs in a constitutional monarchy must follow a constitution that spells out his or her rights, duties and responsibilities. Constitutional democracies have excellent records of democracy, according to libertarian columnist Quentin Langley. He says that constitutional monarchies are some of the best examples of effective parliamentary democracies. Langley points to the examples of the former British territories in Africa, which, when they moved away from the constitutional monarchy, subsequently took away political freedoms. Benevolence: Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University, argues that rulers in a monarchy have a strong incentive to take a long-term view of their kingdom and pursue policies that benefit subjects. In a typical liberal democracy, politicians typically pursue self-serving policies regardless of long-term consequences because they will be out of office before they have to face them. Also, politicians can confuse the citizens by blaming one another endlessly for the harm done by their own policies. Constitutional monarchs are bound by certain limits and are not likely to push these limits for short-term political gains. They rule personally for decades and then leave their kingdom to an heir. Block points out that monarchs will want to pass down a functioning enterprise rather than looting the state treasury before leaving office. Patriotism: Monarchs, by their very nature, are more patriotic than either Prime Ministers or Presidents. They hold great affection for their respective countries: a Prime Minister or President may be at the same post in other countries but Monarchs never have this conflict of interest. So, fundamentally, it is in the interest of any monarch to work towards greater patriotism. Every monarch makes a considerable contribution in the building of his or her nation. One who contributes or invests in anything has more affection for the result – and thus Monarchs love their countries. So Monarchy serves the interest of patriotism far better than a Republican system. Civilisation: World history proves that the civilisation of any country is built by the monarchy; It is difficult to imagine civilisation growing in India without the influence of Muhgal Emperors Ashok and Akbar. Whether the Great Wall of China or the Pyramids of Egypt, Monarchy builds great things. There is no civilisation living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy. Thus, Monarchy is a force for civilisation. Conversely, Republics are founded upon destruction. They are established following the deaths of thousands of people. The destruction of Monarchy in Cambodia resulted in the death of 1.7 million people. The existing unrest in Iran, Iraq, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, throughout the former Soviet Union and the African Continent is due to the destruction of monarchy. Qualification: Monarchs are generally born to be Monarchs. They are born in the palace, which becomes both a home and a school. They are trained for good governance, taught to be polite, calm, patient, obedient and helpful and hence a healthy lifestyle is established. Eventually a monarch becomes mature enough to rule the nation, even at a young age. By contrast, Prime Ministers and Presidents start their political activities from a certain age, and end their careers while still learning. Thus, a Monarch is more qualified than a Prime Minister or a President and hence Monarchy is a far better system in terms of experience. Efficiency: If a monarch is in power, decisions concerning the response or reaction to a crisis are quickly determined without any delay from legislative or external governing bodies. But in a Democracy or a Republic, each and every issue goes through a process which cannot be implemented quickly. Impartiality: Presidents and Prime Ministers come to power after expensive and difficult elections, and are accountable to the voters. They have many commitments to the voters who bring them to power. Thus, an elected official must satisfy a populist ‘mob rule’. But a monarch is not accountable to lobby groups, political parties or institutions. Neither have the gained the position with the help of individuals. Monarchs are above the influence of any group or party. They are free, and every citizen is equal in their eyes. Their hands are not tied by political debts or appeals to popularity, thus a monarchy is better than a Republic regarding impartiality. Corruption: A President or Prime Minister may be corrupt. They are approved by a particular group and thus have a commitment to please them. Next, they have to take part in the election process. When resources are not sufficient to fulfill their requirements, politicians become corrupt and may also become involved in organised crime. But a monarch has no such obligation or political debt, and hence is beyond corruption. Representative: A President or Prime Minister represents a minority group or political party, whereas a Monarch represents a whole society or nation. Until the head of the state represents the whole nation, the actions thereof cannot reflect the will of the people. Political stability: Political stability is essential to solve long-term issues. The primary issue of one political party may be a secondary issue to others. If the party fails in the next election, the long term project may not succeed. But a Monarchical government does not have this problem as a Monarch reigns for life. Thus monarchy gives continuity over a long period of time. Conservation of democracy: History has proved that democracy is safe only in nations with reigning Monarchs. In a Military Dictatorship, the army holds power, and in a Presidential Republic power is held by a political minority. Monarchy, however, provides equal opportunities to all citizens because a Monarch does not belong to any party or group. Check & Balance: Most countries in the world today have two or more political parties. Each has its own set of values and policies. Any party which forms a government has no means to control the actions of others, and thus no means to reach a settlement. A monarch is required to balance the interests of all political parties. I'm done, if you reply again I will ignore you. Bye!
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:25:01.5953568-05:00
PS: I don't even know how it went from the EU to the USA joining common sense such as Canada... This isn't up for debate. This is 'If Scotland gets independence should St. Andrews cross be taken out of the UK?'.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:25:40.6970232-05:00
And that's that. This conversation is over.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:31:26.8941254-05:00
I do apologise for any inconvenience though. But I'm not debating this. Nor do I plan to in awhile. Please get back on topic now so everyone else can to as well.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T16:35:30.8369568-05:00
I could make my argument in response, but you said you would ignore it. And we got to the EU and USA and Monarchies through talk of Scottish independence which was going to inevitably arise from talking about removing the Scottish flag from the Union Flag. I responded to you when you stated the UK would be better off independent from the EU. You do make good points though, I could research and argue back but it seems you no longer wish to debate this, and that is fine. But I must admit, all of the advantages you state can only, truly happen when the Monarchy has a reasonable amount of power, of which she does not in the UK, check the Bill of Rights 1688. That same Bill would govern her actions over the US should the Monarchy be implemented there. And as for your arguments about how all these countries with Monarchies are so great, Europe and other "western" nations, originally colonised by Europe have traditionally had Monarchies. Is it really the Monarchs' doing that they have achieved greatness? Or that fact that AFTER revolutions which suppressed Monarchies (such as in the UK and most wealthy countries with Monarchies), true development has merely come from the, in practice, more powerful Legislatures? Oh and as for the original question, you can see my argument above.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T16:36:13.6589568-05:00
Goodbye :)
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:36:49.3915131-05:00
Lmfao. Goodbye, idiot.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T16:39:13.9013568-05:00
"Lmfao. Goodbye, idiot." Yeah good luck EVER getting in power...
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:40:03.4854689-05:00
I don't need luck, I have facts.
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T16:41:52.8809568-05:00
If you say so. I doubt you really are Emily Molloy. Even if you have "facts", the US will never vote the RoyalistTeaParty into power anyway.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-10T16:42:10.1752596-05:00
But just remember though, Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch of 16 independent countries and the Head of the Commonwealth of 54 nations across the globe- an absolutely astonishing fact in this age of separatism and a massive worldwide symbol of unity and association which can only be achieved by a monarch – can you imagine all these nations agreeing on an appointed let alone elected symbol? It seems you lack patriotism. Anyway, have a nice life! :) x bye!
Zylorarchy says2014-05-10T16:45:40.2171768-05:00
I never actually said I opposed the Monarchy. No, I don't, I think it (she) should stay. I was arguing that a Monarchy is not necessary, I extremely doubt the US will have implement the Monarchy, and that Britain she definitely not leave the European Union.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-30T13:10:02.3249515-05:00
Oh look at that, UKIP has won. I predicted right. Once Scotland leaves, I will have predicted 100% correct. Again, my views are correct, hence why idiots like you two make no difference.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-30T13:13:28.1615920-05:00
As for you thinking the U.S should not take my Party serious (www.Royalistpartyusa.Tk), then you should do a little bit more research on how this would be good for the United States. That's all I have to say, nice chatting with you though.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-30T13:15:42.3748570-05:00
And no, this isn't Emily Molloy... This is a mock account.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-30T13:17:05.2737884-05:00
Anyway, goodbye now.
RoyalistTeaParty says2014-05-30T13:18:40.8029981-05:00
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/01/the-royalist-party-of-america/ I've been trying to discredit her but it's not working, so anyway... Bye.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.