Are you all getting ready for the Kingzilla’s special day? People in Scotland are either not interested or actively repelled by the festival of compulsory British nationalim. At the weekend fans at a Celtic match were filmed singing, “You can stick yer coronation up yer arse,” Scotland’s official entry in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest.
BBC Scotland is getting increasingly desperate in its attempts to find someone who gives a toss. In a report which hurriedly glossed over an opinion poll which found that almost three quarter of people in Scotland intend to be washing their hair that day, including those of us who are bald, the BBC interviewed some posh wummin who is apparently the Lord Lieutenant of Caithness, which is a real thing in Britain in 2023. As the official royal representative in the far north of Scotland, she was naturally keen to tell us that contrary to popular belief the royal spaniel is really deeply Scottish, as evidenced by the fact that he likes to put a kilt on when he’s not even attending a wedding.
Following this we were treated to the opinions of some character who heads up one of Charles’s rural development charities, a charity which probably wouldn’t be needed if the spaniel coughed up some of that personal fortune of £1.8 billion he reportedly has. Anyway, apparently the king loves nothing more than channelling his inner crofter, and talking to the tatties he’s planting with his sausage fingers while the wind whips round his nads under his kilt. Apparently you can’t get more Scottish than that. Who knew.
But the BBC kept the best for last, it then presented us with some ridiculous figure who was cos-playing a court herald from one of those movies about a teenage American girl who finds out that she’s really the heir to the throne of Buggerovia. Presumably he felt that the fancy costume gave him an air of authority as he assured us that Scotland is really deeply involved in the Coronation and not just in the next game of Dungeons and Dragons that he’s organising. Disney herald guy told us how he’d be accompanying what may or may not be the real Stone of Destiny to the ceremony, but he said nothing about the Pebble of Fortune, the Rock of Doom, or the Briquette of Next Week’s Lottery Numbers.
This charade is costing the public purse some £100 million while billionaire Charles continues to rake in millions annually in public funds ,benefits from lucrative tax breaks and the ability to influence legislation that might have an impact on his vast personal fortune. But according to the British media this petulant and bad tempered man with several palaces, and an enormous retinue of staff who once commandeered a Canadian RAF jet to fly a thousand miles and back to retrieve a shoe horn is famous for his frugality.
We then had respected historian Professor Tom Devine claiming that due to the current travails of the SNP, ‘independence is dead for a generation’ and Charles faces no immediate threat to the unity of his kingdom. However as the good professor of history is very fond of observing, “the future is not my period.” What all of this has to do with Scotland’s lack of interest in the coronation is not entirely clear. Tom Devine’s speculations about the timing of independence are no more valid than anyone else’s, and it’s highly relevant that support for independence does not seem to be affected by party issues within the SNP. It’s almost as though the people of Scotland understand that an independent Scotland will be a democracy in which they do not have to vote SNP. That’s a lesson that the media in Scotland don’t appear to have grasped. But trust the BBC to turn an opinion poll showing a growing disconnect in public attitudes between Scotland and the rest of the UK and how this royal event is actively repulsing many Scots into an attack on Scottish independence.
Anyway, this weekend we learned that the public is to be asked to give a ‘great cry’ in a mass swearing of allegiance to #NotMySpaniel. This is the very definition of a great cry for attention. North Korea called, it wants its personality cult back. It’s all a bit sad and desperate and definitely not a cult, oh no. There will certainly be mass swearing, just not the kind that Charles might enjoy listening to. I’m rehearsing my swearing already. I’ll also be raising something to welcome the new king, it will be a hand with the middle finger extended.
We’re in for an entire week of this sycophantic bollocks, regaled with pseudo mediaeval rituals which were invented by Victorians off their faces on opium and this entire high camp charade of dressing up in silly and outlandish costumes will be treated with po-faced reverence by the very same people who pontificate about the immense damage done to impressionable young minds by drag queens. Still, if nothing else the pantomime has the merit of diverting the attention of the Scottish media from its favourite diet of SNP bad stories.
That would be the same media which hounded the SNP about accountability and openness and then virtually ignored how the Conservatives tried to prevent journalists from questioning Rishi Sunak after his recent appearance at the Scottish Conservative conference. It’s only some parties which are expected to be open to press scrutiny it seems, just like it’s only some parties which are to be hounded until they reveal their membership figures. In an interview over the weekend Douglas Ross yet again refused to answer when asked how many members the Conservatives have in Scotland.
We all know the reason for the reticence. It’s because the answer to that question is an embarrassingly small number. If the Tories, or Labour for that matter, had anywhere close to the same number of members in Scotland as the SNP they’d be proclaiming it from the rooftops as proof that the SNP does not speak for Scotland. But the truth is that they are both minor parties in Scottish terms who enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence and favourable media attention only thanks to their strength in England. The likelihood is that the combined membership of the Labour and Conservative parties in Scotland is but a small fraction of SNP membership, a tiny number of people, even fewer than the number of those who are interested in the ludicrously costumed display of sycophancy and entitlement at Westminster Abbey next weekend.
________________________________________________________________
My Gaelic maps of Scotland are still available, a perfect gift for any Gaelic learner or just for anyone who likes maps. The maps cost £15 each plus £7 P&P within the UK. You can order by sending a PayPal payment of £22 to weegingerbook@yahoo.com (Please remember to include the postal address where you want the map sent to).
I am now writing the daily newsletter for The National, published every day from Monday to Friday in the late afternoon. So if you’d like a daily dose of dug you can subscribe to The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper, here: Subscriptions from The National
This is your reminder that the purpose of this blog is to promote Scottish independence. If the comment you want to make will not assist with that goal then don’t post it. If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership there are other forums where you can do that. You’re not welcome to do it here.
You can help to support this blog with a PayPal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button below. If you don’t have a PayPal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.
Wee Ginger Dug 
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
I don’t see the point in all this anti-monarchy stuff – by the same token as most not being interested, some ARE interested, and some don’t really care either way. But it doesn’t stop them being people we should be trying to convert to a YES vote, which SHOULD be what all this is about.
We were in Asda a few days apart, and previously stacked shelves with bunting and cornoationstuff were nearly empty- and this is the one at Ardrossan. B&M and Home Bargains were similar, as was M&S.
So yeah, up to 30% of people in Scotland will be going something on Saturday, including my wife who likes the pomp and circumstance as her country doesn’t have it. And I’ll be celebrating it with her, fleg in hand!
Meanwhile elsewhere from Chris McEleny:
““The Royal Standard may be flying over Westminster Abbey on Saturday as people pledge allegiance to the English King but a Lion Rampant will be roaring across Scotland telling the Westminster establishment that Scotland will rise now and be an independent nation again.” ”
mmm, doesn’t he realise the Lion Eampant is the King’s standard in Scotland?
If you believe in independence you will be in a very small subset of people who are ardent monarchists and pro independence. These 2 groups are as close to being mutually exclusive as I can imagine with the 30% you quote (from where?) that will be celebrating coronation are nearly all ardently opposed to independence and Tories or unionist (orange) Labour in origin.
Occasions like the coronation, rather than making people less pro-independence, are more liable to repulse many soft No’s who are anti-monarchy, anti-Brexit but have still to be persuaded about case for independence.
1. I didn’t say I was an ardent monarchist. I’m actually fairly agnostic. And though Indy supporters are a bit more likely to be anti-monarchy than the NO voters, according to polls, it’s not “a very small subset”, as you assert without quoting any polling data.
2. The two groups are not mutually exclusive (check out your history including the so-called “Union of Crowns”). When the Union is over, the monarchy still exists in Scotland unless there is a vote to get rid of it.
3. There is absolutely no polling data that supports your contention about the 30% beingardently opposed to independence and Tories or unionist (orange) Labour in origin“.
That last is a divisive presumption that actually proves the whole point of my posting – thanks!
Now perhaps people can understand why all this anti-monarchy stuff is bad for the Indy cause.
You are correct that there are a lot of people like yourself (maybe majority in Scotland?) who are not ardent monarchist’s or republicans but agnostic and find it all a bit of a bore. Many of these will be independence supporters, as you say, but I doubt many will be waving flags or following every moment on tv on telly.
What I am saying is that I doubt that there will be many people who are ardent monarchists who also support independence. Polls show that support for monarchy in general is lower in independence supporters than non indy supporters. I fully support what I wrote about who the ardent monarchists would potentially support politically and find it odd you would challenge this.
Lastly I agree that independence should be kept separate from abolition of monarchy but I would fully expect there to be parties standing, post independence, who would look to have a vote on the subject and this would gather a lot of support from the Scottish public. I have said to people who are anti-independence and republican that they would have far more chance of living in a republic in an independent Scotland than remaining in UK.
The amount of tat that is on sale re the coronation is unreal. The three friends of mine who like the monarchy and who I doubt will ever support Indy wouldn’t be seen dead wearing a Union Jack dress that Asda are selling. I suppose they might be popular to wear in July for those who follow the Orange Order marches. Putting union Jack jumpers on wee dogs is not something they would do either. Most folk who like the monarchy will watch the coronation and that is it not deck themselves or their houses in that flag. I am going away up North with a friend to get away from the TV because the coronation will be on TV the whole weekend I sm sure
There’s bound to be a rerun of ‘the spice girls’ wiggling their butcher’s glittery garb too.
I’d far rather you never mention McEleny ever again.
He has an involvement with my football club
and to my mind has too much persuasion.
LOL
I saw him at a depute hustings and thought he was OK though I voted Robertson in the end.
He disimproved after that (the nameless one not Robertson).
Does Humza have to swear an oath of fealty since he is going to the hat plonking? Two suggestions Humza one) swear an non oath in your birth language, or mouth hee haw standing beside DRoss who will be shouting his out and two), like the old chieftains forced to swear fealty to (I think, Hinglaish regal history not my strongest suit) I think William the something, did so with the soil of their own lands in their shoes. I see that the Jewish rabbi involved in the ridiculous event will not be using a microphone as it breaks Shabbat regulations, can we organise for all the republican sound engineers to shut down all the mics. Hmmmm
Izzy…….its….I cant blow my cover but tell Ronnie I was asking after him…..and you of course.x
hey Tam the Bam, he is confused, but thank you. Should go undercover myself, but don’t comment often enough!!!
Every Scot knows without being told, the English don’t like us in what they consider to be their country that we just happen to occupy
Even the unionists in their hearts know they’re not equally thought of and never will be
Some try, they move to England and decide to *lose* their accent, what that means is the racist pressure made them change it in a belief they can fit in, my own mother was born bred and raised in the midlands of England, married my Edinburgh father moved to Scotland and the whole of her life her accent didn’t change one iota because nobody up my street gave a toss where she came from as long as she was an OK person, she wasn’t, but that was just an unfortunate personality thing as a result of her believing the English were born to rule even though most of them are as dumb as soup, or is it just my family? Nah don’t think so
My father way back then was a Scottish nationalist and I know what you’re thinking, how? how did two completely different personalities end up married? it’s easy, she was very pretty and, well, he’s a man
Scotland is full of unchanged English accents and nobody cares, it’s just personalities that are the problem, and those personalities habits patterns environment shape who and what you are, and why after 300 years no matter what they try, they have been unsuccessful in making Scotland England
That says an awful lot about the strength of character of Scots and why without thinking we have always defeated the English empire, because we still don’t give a toss about cricket Shakespeare or the royals
We like fitba Burns and pretty girls whichever country they come from
From the National:
“a new poll showed that around three-quarters of Scots do not care about the coronation”
72% actually, but hey, Britnats exaggerate. Anyways, what gets me is, if 72% of Scots don’t care, WHY do they spend so much time on social media and write so many articles to say they don’t care? Very strange.
“44% of respondents have a positive view of the royal family in general while 47% have a negative view and the remainder said they do not know.
So I was wrong. It’s not 30% of people who could be antagonised by all the over the top whinging and outright bellicose nastiness, it’s a staggering 53%.
And it’s good night for YES. No, it’s a bad night but it’s good night from YES. Oh nevermind, I don’t care .
You are playing with statistics here and you are forgetting this article was actually about the upcoming coronation so from your figures the people that really care about coronation (by definition ardent Royalists) = 100- 72 = 28%
As to the general view of the Royal Family you have managed to take the 9% with no view and added them to those have a positive view of Royal Family – you cannot do this just to suit your point of view. The facts however are that 47% (negative view) is greater than 44% (positive view) and I bet you the gap is much greater amongst younger people.
All we can say from the poll is that vast majority of Scots do not care about the upcoming coronation and by a small margin Scots have a negative view of the Royal Family in general.
I think you missed the point. From the blog:
“This is your reminder that the purpose of this blog is to promote Scottish independence. ”
NOT a republic.
And the title of the article is ‘Swearing at Kingsilla’s Special Day.’!
The fundamental point of independence is that the Scottish electorate are free to decide for themselves how they are governed.
In quarter terms it does round up to three quarters. It’s actually 96% of three quarters, or 2.9 quarters, which I’d say counts as pretty much three quarters. It’s well over two thirds, so again three quarters is nearer. Falls way short of four fifths, so back to three quarters. It’s much closer to sixth eighths than it is five, but then the latter is just three quarters…
Halves, quarters, thirds, fifths, maybe eighths, but never sevenths and rarely sixths! Just not the done thing.
If you are going to use tenths for precision and understanding, you could use 7 in 10, but 7 in 10 is just 1% (1.4% to be precise) more accurate than three quarters! And nobody would use five sevenths, even though that would be almost spot on at 71.4%
a new poll showed that over five sevenths of Scots do not care about the coronation!
I’ll get my coat. Any morning errors are my own.
Aye, that needed said, particularly amusing your astute observation on ritualism –
“We’re in for an entire week of this sycophantic bollocks, regaled with pseudo mediaeval rituals which were invented by Victorians off their faces on opium and this entire high camp charade of dressing up in silly and outlandish costumes will be treated with po-faced reverence by the very same people who pontificate about the immense damage done to impressionable young minds by drag queens”
The desperation of the BBC to promote this monarchic farce is evident on their UK webpage, “King Charles Coronation: George VI’s chair recycled for enthronement”, the opening line of which is “The King is recycling a chair used by King George VI for the Coronation, in an effort to make the event more sustainable” https://archive.ph/rzkIJ
Strewth…
Ooh that’ll make a hole in the £100 million and save a bob or two hahaha
I am tickled by the sheer cheek of the concept of a new tradition. It pretty much sums up where the UK is and continues to head. A sort of through the looking glass jumble of eccentricities and unpleasantness.
I shall be washing my hair.
the concept of a new tradition.
___________
An oxymoron (with the emphasis on the last two syllables) of the highest order.
I think we can agree that the monarchy does not believe in Scots Independence- whether KC3 purrs or not I will leave to QCC to find out.
From indifference I am now more certain that on Scotland’s Independence a vote to have an Elected President is the way forward. It works in Ireland.
I’m hoping this embarrassing charade will be the final nails in the coffin of unionism. The vast gulf that separates Scotland from Westminster will be made visible in a way that few of us could have predicted. The Queen was an institution which existed for almost all of our lives. But when she died the monarchy passed into history. That’s where it belongs. RIP.
“But when she died the monarchy passed into history.” Maybe, but gently does it. We should let people come to their own conclusions on this rather than associate Indy with it. Let them do that!
Yes, of course. But if we don’t say what we think and leave the stage clear for the unionists then how are people going to come to their own conclusions?
Right now isn’t the time to promote or discuss republicism, though I do expect this issue to be promoted by the British media. Scotland retaining the monarchy and leaving the union as the ancient and continuing Kingdom of Scotland is essential to retaining Scotlands territorial integrity, reparation and indeed speed up international recognition and support.
Right now our focus should be to remind the monarchy and the right wing lunatics in charge of his so called uk that the Claim of Right and the English Bill of Rights are central tenets of his coronation oath part of which deals with despotic government. Charles the 3rd needs to be reminded that his oath isn’t to God, it’s to us.
Look…..lets see what transpires on the day.
Personally…..I know there is an AUOB rally on Saturday barely a mile fae my flat.
Will I be there..swithering. AUOB marches have degenerated into an anti-SNP ‘rant’ whenever an SNP speaker took the stage.
Saturday is a bit different on MANY LEVELS.
Do I expect anti-SNP hassle…..probably.
Will I be swearing at my feet( not fer Cherlie mind) when we get tae Glesga Green?…..Definately!
Do I hope we are ONE…….. (answers on a postcard please).
thei
It’s a shame that AUOB has become an anti SNP led mob, but of course that was deliberate to blame the SNP for not *delivering* what they promised they would
As we all know it’s the SNPs fault that the Westminster UK English government does not recognise democracy, it’s the SNPs fault that we were dragged out of the EU against our will even though Ian Blackford was determined we wouldn’t be
All these things are definitely the fault of the SNP
The SNP should’ve done something, I keep reading that and hearing it and seeing it
Just for once I’d like some of these big mouthed Alba propagandists, just even one of them to tell us their solution followed by an easy to understand explanation of how to make the UK government recognise democracy when they choose not to instead of their vote winning slogan *it’s all the fault of the SNP*
Even dugs know England is a dictatorship, solve that Alba then get back to us with your next complaint
The SNP should’ve done something, I keep reading that and hearing it and seeing it
Just for once I’d like some of these big mouthed Alba propagandists, just even one of them to tell us their solution followed by an easy to understand explanation of how to make the UK government recognise democracy
I wouldn’t describe myself as a big-mouthed Alba propagandist, though others may disagree. But my solution would be to use an election as a de facto referendum. The UK government would still try to ignore a Yes result, of course, but it would get us much further along than we are.
I find myself arriving at the same conclusion.
Me and my chain tugger, sorry my wife and I will be attending. All to aware that some people can’t leave their personal agenda at home despite this being an opportunity to demonstrate solidarity and strength.
Good point. From the 1707 Act of Union with England:
“Act Ratifying and Approving the Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of SCOTLAND and ENGLAND”
so yeah, it definitely makes life easier if it stays that way in reverse!
As for the allegiance nonsense, it should indeed be the other way around – he swears allegiance to us. We’ve not been given parcels of other people’s lands or common land to be his barons or whatever.
And again yeah – in theory he is an exit for us from the undemocratic Union which denies us our right of self-determination.
Anyways I’m off. Or orf as they say.
Historic photo
Hibs finest supporter.
“….the wind whips round his nads under his kilt.”
==========
Can this be really true?
Tampon Charlie goes commando!
I’m shocked! Shocked I say. Where will this all end?
To show he’s a true Scotsman?
Suitably appropriate for the blog topic.
And what did I tell you W_S! 🙂
https://archive.is/vy9mm
Welsh language blunder spotted on UK Government allegiance oath webpage
People have spotted yet another Welsh language blunder from the UK Government. The error was circulated on social media after being spotted on a webpage relating to the oath of allegiance carried out during citizenship ceremonies.
In English, the oath starts: “I (name) swear by Almighty God.” The Welsh translation says: “Byddaf i (enw) yn rhegi i Dduw Omnipotent.”
However, it should say tyngu instead of rhegi. The difference between the words is that rhegi means to swear/curse whilst tyngu means to swear allegiance.
Aye, I’ll be swearing on coronation day, no doubts there!
See, that’s what happens when you don’t have a native speaker doing the translation or post-translation editing. You can’t rely on dictionaries or Google-Translate.
It wouldn’t have happened if Welsh_Sion had been on the job! Or, indeed, if the ex-Prince of Wales had been brought up speaking the language.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, DonDon – although you’ll be aware that I already turned down a commission to turn down a translation of some story book for children on the history of the Coronation over the ages and the forming of the ‘United Kingdom’ [sic.]
Not only does it give you a presentation that using Scotland’s Stone of Destiny creates for a ‘good union’ (theft as being ‘a good thing’?) but that the present UK was brought together by parts of all component parts of it coming together – with nary a feature on my own (or my putative readership’s) country, nor of course the blood, treachery and general chicanery that went into building that ‘united kingdom’.
I have more worthwhile projects on-hand, and I doubt that many of my Welsh translator colleagues will accept much work on the Coronation farrago.
The Victorians have more than a lot to answer to. They also invented ‘the Vikings with horned helmets’.
As for Tom Devine, cushy job, and appeals to the anti-Scottish media with his ‘depth of knowledge on all things throughout Scottish history…’
I would imagine he’s already putting his next history of Scotland book together, with ‘camillagate’ as a chapter of ‘love’.
If the monarchy is so unpopular here you wonder why Salmond saw a referendum on the subject as such a vote loser that he chose to overrule internal party democracy to get rid of it.
Almost certainly a wise decision.
Those in Scotland who want a republic are already voting for indy as it’s the only viable route they have to that. Britain is never going to ditch the royals in our lifetimes; Scotland probably will at some point.
There just aren’t that many anti-monarchists sitting on the indy fence. There are however plenty of those who at worse feel indifference towards the royals. Going full-on republicanism will only push them away.
Not every indy supporter is good at political strategy. Those who are not support people like Salmond and republicanism, despite the wider harm to the movement each causes. Seems to be a lot of crossover between the two groups.
There just aren’t that many anti-monarchists sitting on the indy fence. There are however plenty of those who at worse feel indifference towards the royals. Going full-on republicanism will only push them away.
Conference didn’t vote for “full-on republicanism”: in fact, it specifically rejected it, and said the SNP should take a neutral stance in the referendum. Even that was too rich for the leadership’s blood.
Because he understood the necessity of Scotland leaving the union as a continuing state. Hence retaining the pound and the BOE
What does that have to do with holding a post-independence referendum on the monarchy?
Where exactly did you mention ‘ post independence ‘ and why would it be post independence and not before independence.
Because that was the motion that conference voted for?
He’s now arguing the SNP shouldn’t have let the stone be used in the coronation after previously backing retention of the monarchy…
Ach well back onto self ID and The Cherry show.
When you become the story you need to rethink. Apparently many SNP MP’s , MSP’s agree with her.
I don’t want to add to the controversy in the snp party, she states on the BBC and therefore adds to the controversy.
Doesn’t she agree with a majority vote in the Scots Parliament or is it to be trashed like Westminster?
Joanna Cherry’s problem is she doesn’t understand the law
All laws lead to the wrong outcome if the people don’t like them
To try to enforce law against people’s personal taste and preferences becomes bad law, it makes no difference whether a law is sensible or fair or even just, people in the end decide what they like or don’t like, that’s how good law is made
“ Joanna Cherry’s problem is she doesn’t understand the law”
======
Joanna Cherry KC doesn’t understand the law?
It must be a pretty eccentric misunderstanding shared by the a UK Supreme Court that struck down Boris Johnson’s attempted prorogation of Parliament.
Of course the law could be made by AI but i’m guessing Joanna Cherry wouldn’t agree with that either
People and democracy are the law, and choose the law they want to live by, they also choose what not to like and have the right not to like Joanna Cherry if they don’t want to, Joanna Cherry seems not to like other people’s preferences when it comes to not agreeing with hers yet insists they must because of the law
The law is not and never can be undeniable, ergo Joanna Cherry does not understand the law when she attempts to use it as a weapon against preference or taste
Laws change, lawyers?
Thanks for getting back. I’m sorry about my own dilatoriness and lack of attention.
I’m also sorry, that I cannot get my head round your argument. Your original claim that a KC did not understand the law astonished me-even had that selfsame KC not been instrumental in destroying Johnson’s attempt to prorogue Parliament.
I know she
understands the law better than I do, and suspect , with all due respect, you do also.
I don’t think Cherry is trying to break the law. However, disagreeing with a point and speaking at a venue to explain what that disagreement is is not illegal in this country (yet).
I don’t like this practice of closing down debate. Christians burned Beatles albums in the 60s because they didn’t like what John Lennon said. They did it because they thought they were right and he was wrong. The people that close down politicians like Cherry do so because they think they are right. The book burners always think they are right and therefore it is OK this time. It isn’t OK. Fascism comes in many different dress styles but the underlying authoritarianism remains the same.
I have no idea if I agree with Cherry or not. Even if I disagree I still think she has the right to speak.
I do not like the direction we are heading.
Yet she was on bbc and other shows when others have not. Hardly silenced.
If I have an issue with Cherry as an MP not a MSP is that she is unwilling to accept the vote of the Scots Parliament by her SNP colleagues and MSP’s of all other parties but siding with the likes of the Tory papers, Alister Jack and his ilk.
The drafts and discussion went on for years and debated in the Scots Parliament. She conflates one issue with another and muddies the water.
I don’t agree with some aspects of the gender reform but I accept parliaments right to make law. I just wish Cherry did too.
If I have an issue with Cherry as an MP not a MSP is that she is unwilling to accept the vote of the Scots Parliament by her SNP colleagues and MSP’s of all other parties but siding with the likes of the Tory papers, Alister Jack and his ilk.
When did she side with them? As far as I can see she opposes the section 35.
She constantly attacks the decision taken.
Disagreeing with a decision taken by parliament isn’t a denial of parliament’s right to make law.
She can give it a rest. All she is doing it is stirring the pot. Still I think she knows that.
Hamish….you’re the one who needs to give it a rest.
Joanna Cherry would destroy your opposition in seconds.
And by the way…..SHE WANTS TO SEE AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND!
Why is she speaking about the GRR at the Fringe which is at least 3 months away? If indeed that is what she was intending to speak about. Is she hoping her talk will coincide with the S35 Court case thus maximising the publicity she will get?
Maybe, just maybe, the staff not wanting her talk to take place has nothing to do with discrimination but everything to do with the possibility of protests which might get out of hand and harm them since they may be ‘policing’ the event in the first instance.
She intends to speak about her experience in politics as a lesbian and feminist as she did last year at the same venue. Other politicians are invited to do the same such as Anas Sarwar, Mhairi Black and Jeremy Corbyn. The interview I linked to below sets out her intention.
The staff at The Stand published their reasons for cancelling her appearance. They clearly state it is her beliefs which prompted them to do so. Roddy Dunlop, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and Adam Tomkins, Professor of Constitutional Law at Glasgow University have both pointed out the folly of their actions.
They would have been wiser not to pick on a former Human Rights lawyer and KC.
She says in her interview that she hopes The Stand will reconsider. So she does not intend to go to court unless necessary.
I listened to Joanna Cherry’s interview this morning on the Kaye Adams programme and agreed with everything Joanna said. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are fundamental to democracy. Even if I didn’t agree with JC I would still defend her right to speak.
Here’s the link if anyone wants to hear for themselves.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001lj33
A lot of staff who work in hospitality or festival venues will be on zero hours contracts Per employment law you cannot force anyone on a zero hours contract to work a shift they don’t want to. Whether the staff are frightened of trouble at the venue or don’t agree with some of Joannas politics does not matter. In this instance Equalities Act cannot Trump employment law on zero hours contracts. If the staff are concerned about their safety from the loonies on either side of the GRR debate I can understand their reason for not wanting to work. Entertainment Venues and hospitality in general everywhere are struggling to retain stuff they really don’t want to piss off staff. However I think it likely it is more the venue management who have decided this year they really don’t want the risk of trouble and staff not keen to work that night suits them.
Cherry absolutely doesn’t have the right to speak at venues of her choice. It’s up to said venues to decide if they wish to host her appearance. That is absolutely key to free speech. Venues should never be forced to host events, especially those of a political nature.
People’s political leanings* are not protected characteristics, so it’s perfectly legal for a venue to refuse to host a pro or an anti-GGR evening. They could not refuse Cherry entry for being a lesbian (even if she’s only self-id’ing as that, having never actually proven it, even though she requires of trans people) or someone for being black etc. But they can turn down pro-fascist events just as they could turn down leftie-liberal ones if they wanted.
Free speech being harmed is governments banning people from speaking or stopping a venue from showing a film. Venues deciding not to show a film or host someone’s event is absolutely not – this is actually the very essence of free speech.
Cherry could open her own public (licensed as a business) venue and show films that she liked / host whatever events she wished. She could not exclude trans people from attending though, although she would be free to refuse to host pro-GRR evenings.
In terms of peaceful protest, people can protest outside public (business / charity) venues hosting political evenings, including films with political messages. Cherry’s anti-GRR people do this all the time with her support, then she complains when pro-GRR do the same. 🙂
If Cherry built an extension to her house which has a cinema/auditorium and invited people round to anti-GRR evenings, then protesting outside her house would not be right as it’s a private residence and the police could move people on, prosecuting offenders as needed. Everyone has a right to privately go about their business like this if it causes no public disturbance / offence.
—
*Support for indy / the union are as these are apolitical and relate to national identity, which is protected.
You obviously don’t understand “discrimination”. Listen to the interview linked above.
Of course I understand discrimination and if she’s being discriminated against based on a protected characteristic, she can take it to the police who would act. She’s not doing this here (Comedy Club story) I understand(?), presumably because there is no case.
If she was turned away at the door of a club / venue simply for being a lesbian or a woman, that would totally be discrimination. If she wanted to give a political speech / interview at venue decided they didn’t want to host her due to the politics involved, it wouldn’t. I understand in this case it’s the latter, so isn’t discrimination. Nobody at the venue said they were uncomfortable with her being a woman, a lesbian or a feminist from what I’ve read; it was her political views and giving these a platform that venue staff were uncomfortable with. That is the venue’s right to freedom of speech / expression being protected. It’s like me refusing to let the National Front hold their AGM in my hotel (if I ran one). I can’t turn them away for being white, but if they marched in and started canvassing I could ask them to leave.
Joanna can’t force a venue to give her a platform for her political views any more than the head of Britain First can. What next, forcing Churches into gay marriages? Mosques to hold nudist nights? Hotels owned by lesbians being forced to host homophobic political party events?
No-platforming is not limiting free speech. It’s upholding it. Nobody is stopping Cherry buying a venue or using one owned by someone anti-GRR who’d happily host her. But she can’t demand to use someone’s venue to promote her political views against their wishes. And she’s never out of the news – everyone knows her views even if they don’t want to. The British papers love her and give her all the air time she could dream of. If there is anyone in the world not having their freedom of speech curtailed, it’s her!
Incidentally, as noted, if she was actually being discriminated against based on being a lesbian, the police would not ask her to prove she was this, such as by providing evidence she’d lived as that for 2 years, combined with a psychiatrist’s opinion that she was homosexual. She’s lucky to have the legal right of self-id for this. 🙂
Yup, the club did not have to book her, but they decided to do so and in doing so agreed to provide a service to her.
Now, apparently, they have withdrawn that service based on her protected philosophical belief, which could be judged as discriminatory.
Of course I understand discrimination and if she’s being discriminated against based on a protected characteristic, she can take it to the police who would act. She’s not doing this here (Comedy Club story) I understand(?), presumably because there is no case.
Nothing to do with the police because discriminatory withdrawal of a product/service falls under civil not criminal law and thus outside the remit of the police.
Venues want good press coming up when people google them, not controversy. The bad press from an early cancellation is nothing compared to that of protests.
Protests mean more security needs to be paid for. Acts would avoid them in future to avoid any association. Customers would do the same. How many times have you been in a Wetherspoons since Brexit or their Covid denial?
There’s just no profit in it & lots of risk. Best to stay apolitical when running a business.
However, ignoring the economic arguments, this is their basic right because of their own “protected philosophical belief” as you put it. If you extend such a right to the speaker/act then surely that same right exists for the venue?
And if not, who gets to write this list of “valid forcible opinions”? Because you gotta draw the line somewhere, unless you want Kanye up on your stage ranting about how evil jews are. I mean say what you want about the tenants of Nation Socialism dude, it’s also a “philosophical belief”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w
The speaker/performer is the one providing the service by the way, not the other way around. They usually sign a “performance contract” in which the venue is a client of the performer. Both parties have cancellation rights.
If you extend such a right to the speaker/act then surely that same right exists for the venue?
It does the venue cannot be forced to make someone share their views, they can totally say you are not allowed to talk about women’s/ trans rights otherwise you can’t use our venue. But they have not exercised this option, they have stopped her from performing because of her views.
The speaker/performer is the one providing the service by the way, not the other way around.
They are both providing a service, the venue it providing the service of providing the venue, providing people to check tickets, ushers, ensuring that health and safety and fire requirements regulations are meet etc
And if not, who gets to write this list of “valid forcible opinions”
Judges ultimately, decide if the subject matter that the claimant is saying they are being discriminated against meets the criteria set out in the Equalities Act.
Sorry, but I can decide who to rent my venue to based on the purpose they intend to use it for. I can change that decision at any time.
So, I can decide to let someone book it for a political interview (‘an interview with Tommy Robinson’), then, in retrospect, decide it may be bad for my venue to do this, and decide to cancel. I should explain the reasons and come good on any contractual compensation etc.
To suggest anything else is madness. Service delivery is reciprocal. Both parties must agree to it.
What a venue cannot do is refuse someone the use of their facilities purely based on a protected characteristic where they would have otherwise allowed it.
So, Cherry cannot be stopped from hiring a venue simply because she claims to be a lesbian nor is, as far as we know, female. But a venue can say they’ve decided that they don’t want to host an event that she planned due to a change in circumstances, such as adverse negative publicity as it was politically related or something. That is absolutely fine.
It’s madness to suggest a venue can’t do that. Clearly they are not even anti- anti-GRR people. They took the booking. But then they say they’ve had negative feedback and decided to act on that for business reasons. They are open about this:
https://news.stv.tv/east-central/joanna-cherry-says-she-was-no-platformed-after-venue-scrap-fringe-event-at-the-stand-comedy-club
“I’m being cancelled and no-platformed because I’m a lesbian
Well report this to the police. If that’s the reason they turned you down, report it. That or take them to court.
You’d better be right making such claims, otherwise they could sue you for defamation or even report you to the police for verbal abuse.
Now, apparently, they have withdrawn that service based on her protected philosophical belief
There’s no evidence for refusal based on a protected characteristic which is why you don’t provide any and neither has Cherry.
Would be interesting to know if the venue staff are homophobic as Cherry claims, again without evidence. They may wish to sue for defamation if not, especially if some are LGB.
Seems to me it was a business decision. I’ve seen no evidence for anything else.
No-platforming is not limiting free speech. It’s upholding it.
That has to be the silliest comment I’ve read in a long time. You clearly have no grasp of what discrimination is. Listen to the interview.
I agree with that sentiment, it’s upholding the free speech of the venue’s owner. Should private venues be forced to provide platforms for the opinions of people who the owner’s disagree with?
Still not with me? Fine, why not call up STV and demand a two hour slot on their 6pm news program? Do let us know how that goes.
You want the right to a platform? Build your own then no one can tell you what to do with it. What exactly do you think this site is? Do you think that Lord Frost should be allowed force his own blog level posts here? The whole Indy movement is built on indy media for this reason, ‘cos we ain’t getting platforms on The Telegraph.
Additionally, any discrimination claimed by Cherry can equally be claimed by any other member of staff there that night. Clearly a trans bartender isn’t going to be very welcome.
should private venues be forced to provide platforms for the opinions of people who the owners disagree with?
Yes and no. You cant refuse to provide a venue just because you don’t agree with a person’s beliefs, but you can refuse to allow the person to share those beliefs.
So using your example of STV, they can refuse you a two-hour slot to talk about Scottish Independence, but they can’t refuse you a two-hour slot to talk about something that is not a Philosophical belief just because you support Scottish Independence.
but you can refuse to allow the person to share those beliefs.
Aye, which is what just happened with Cherry and the planned event where she would share beliefs on a range of subjects publicly. Venue decided it might harm business.
How we’ve ended up with 25 posts due to people arguing over such a simple matter is beyond me.
Too late. They entered into a contract to allow her to use their venue to share those protected beliefs if she wanted to. They cant now change their mind because they think it might hurt their business. See Graham vs SECC for the precedent. They entered into a contract but then canceled the concert because of the damage they perceived it could do to their business, this was ruled to be discriminatory, and cost them £110k.
The management entered into the contract. The staff objected and threatened to withdraw their labour.
Yea, the whole paragraph makes no sense TBH.
But she can’t demand to use someone’s venue to promote her political views against their wishes
She didn’t demand, the venue booked her.
And she’s never out of the news – everyone knows her views even if they don’t want to. The British papers love her and give her all the air time she could dream of
How much media coverage someone gets has no bearing on whether or not they are facing discrimination.
As for this
Joanna can’t force a venue to give her a platform for her political views
You are quite right, the venue could have said “Joanna we don’t want you to talk about women’s rights or self-id this would be perfectly legal. You cannot be refused a product or service because of your protected views, but they do not have to give you a platform to facilitate those views.
However, this is not what happened in this case, they are not providing a service due to her views which is discriminatory.
Iit is the characteristics that are protected under the Equality Act 2010 not the views surely?
Philosophical beliefs are protected along with religion. The belief that sex is immutable is therefore protected. See decision in Maya Forstater case.
Yes as Capella says Philosophical beliefs are protected as long as those beliefs do not interfere with the rights of others. So you can say:
” A trans man is not a woman”
as that is your belief and that belief does not interfere with the rights of others. You can’t say:
” a trans man is not a woman and men should not have the right to transition”
because that belief would interfere with the rights of others.
So I await the police to be involved for discrimination laws being broken.
Has Cherry reported this illegal offence or does she think no law has been broken so has not?
You keep mentioning the police, I assume you don’t understand the difference between civil and criminal law, because if you did you would not keep saying that she should take something that (in this instance) falls under civil law to the police.
“The people that close down politicians like Cherry do so because they think they are right. The book burners always think they are right and therefore it is OK this time. It isn’t OK. Fascism comes in many different dress styles but the underlying authoritarianism remains the same.
I have no idea if I agree with Cherry or not. Even if I disagree I still think she has the right to speak.
I do not like the direction we are heading.”
=======
Excellent. From the Beatles era the TV Parlour game is recalled: arrange the following into a well-known phrase or saying
‘the on nail hits head the’
Even if I disagree I still think she has the right to speak.
She does not have the right to decide which venues she speaks publicly in.
As I noted, a conference centre can refuse to host the annual BNP conference if it wants. It can refuse to host any sort of event it feels does not match the image it wants to portray. This is not discrimination. A restaurant can refuse me entry for wearing shorts and a t-shirt not a suit. I just can’t refuse me entry for being Scottish.
So the Comedy club has decided that hosting Cherry talking politics may adversely affect it and it’s staff. It’s nothing to do with her sex, her sexuality, nor even her philosophical beliefs, but what she is expected to speak publicly about. It could stop a radical preacher doing the same. The choice is not based on protected characteristic of the potential person speaking, but the nature of the event event.
What next, we demand libraries host heavy metal events? A church hall hosts orgies? I think we can all safely conclude that if Cherry owned a venue, she’d not be renting it out to anti-GGR or homophobic (e.g. ultra religious) events right? Only a total idiot would suggest she would. And that would be her right.
Cherry can turn up to watch something at the comedy club and they’ll happily let her in as they have no problem with her, but the event concerned. They are not discriminating against her, but events.
If people are unhappy, they can ‘no platform’ the comedy club by refusing to use its services as they don’t like the type of event it chooses to host (or not to). This won’t be illegal either. Refusing the services of someone would only be illegal if you did that on the grounds of protected characteristic, say demanding a different doctor due to the skin colour of the one offered.
If illegal discrimination has occurred, the police / courts will deal with it. If not and nothing illegal has occurred, they won’t. I bet nothing happens because no-platforming isn’t illegal.
The Tories want to change the law here to force venues to host unsavoury types such as the Britain first AGM, even if they don’t want to. That’s because the Tories don’t believe in free speech, but dictatorships where people are forced into things.
Scottish Schools to be indoctrinated with English Schools Monarchy propaganda , with the Scottish parliament having no say ?
Imagine the stooshie if English Schools were sent propaganda about Republicanism by the Scottish parliament , by-passing the Westminster ?
Alister Jack would dash off immediately to The Supreme Court to get an injunction to prevent this Devolved Administration getting above itself , then quickly run back to protect The Stone of Destiny ( Lavvie pan ? ) from those nasty Nats .
Westminster democracy in action !
I see Starmer’s got himself a vote winner by going full Tory and scrapping his promise of free university tuition in England
Now what does the branch manager in Scotland say to that? “we wullnae dae it here honest*
If Labour wins the general election they can use the power of the section on Scotland 35 also, will Sarwar just repeat himself and say *we wullnae dae it here honest*
I bet Sarwar is right now looking at the hole in his foot that his boss Stamer put there wae a big gun
The piece of sandstone known as the Stone of Destiny is clearly not the original stone. Eyewitness descriptions say it was black, metallic and carved with symbols. No English monarch has sat on the real Stone of Destiny.
See account in https://alba-gu-brath.com/the-stone-of-destiny/
Too right Capella.
And just to stay with the stone-theme, reckon it’s still ensconced in ‘yon cave in the hills snuggled neatly under the water’ featured in Hamish Macbeth 😁
Waiting 😂
I thought it was in a well known pub in Woodside in Glasgow, they claim they have it, ya gotta laugh if they do
Spot on.
[…] Source […]
Sir Tom Devine is an establishment, and therefore Unionist and monarchist, shill. First three letters of his name is a dead giveaway. However, he will have to up his toadying game if he is to join the likes of Baron Hennessy or Baron Roberts of Belgravia in the Lords.
A clever man who’s read many books on the past then rewritten and reworded them about the past
To claim to know the future just slotted him right into the Daily Record Mystic Meg predictions in your stars page, maybe he’s hoping for another income stream as an astrologist, Mystic Sir Tom, phone ins and the like, will my horse win on Tuesday? Rishi from London
Aye seems quite the trend to make predictions about Scotland and Scotland’s future. Gove murmured something about Scotland giving up on independence for the foreseeable future or something. The great British crystal ball hasn’t been polished for some it seems.
He voted Yes in 2014 so the I think the Unionists might consider him one of their lesser lights. He has never been one much for politics though.
Charlie seems to have forgotten that the people of Scotland are sovereign.
Following Starmer’s revisiting his ”pledges” to the Labour faithful ( suckers ? ) and dropping another pledge ( tuition fees ) they have also dropped The Red Flag and will in future sing Queen’s ”Another One Bites the Dust !”
Just a passing thought ….
Anyone heard from/seen Jack Collatin recently? Maybe he really has gone to ground for the duration of the pomp and circumstance of this (Mad) Hatting Ceremony in London. I do hope he’s ok, though. Perhaps he can give us a sign …
Meanwhile, welcome to the 4th Reich:
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/Pj5MosI5vm83COWGHRj_rw–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtjZj13ZWJw/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2023-04/1e92cbb0-e8cd-11ed-979c-1d6dae4a381a
Maybe he’s joined the resistance, I hear the ranks are swelling
I see other commonwealth country flags, in among the butcher’s aprons.
I do not see a Northern Irish, Welsh, or Scottish, national flag.
An, don’t give me any drivel about being included in the butcher’s apron.
Many of the other national flags incorporate the butcher’s apron in their design.
And many do not. and yet they are still flown.
How loud a smack does that hand across your face make, after your told, just like the ventriloquist dummy “back in the box”.
Or am I a touch too sensitive. “It’s just banter” isn’t it ?, aye that’ll be the way of it right enough.
The blue in the union flag is the royal blue of the Royal house, the blue of Scotland is the colour Pantone which is sky blue, the true colour of the Saltire
The red and white already existed as England’s own flag, they just made up nonsense to pacify the Welsh folk
The union flag is yet another fake construct of England that only pretends to include and represent the other countries, they can’t claim it’s a British flag or the pretence of union goes oot the windae, that’s why they invented their political flag and use it to take over by osmosis as their flag of *the country*
England at no time was ever going to include Scotland Wales or anywhere else on what they believe is their mighty display of power flag
So no, you’re not being too sensitive at all
Perfidious Albion, they lie about everything to everybody then throw their arms up in surprised denial that anyone could possibly think they didn’t have everyone’s interests at heart, vow to change then never do, they’re really good at it
Re the background colour of the saltire, it’s specifically Pantone 300!
There are various dates and stories around the origin of the Saltire but the most credible seems to be it was first used by the Picts in 832AD in a battle in East Lothian, some say it’s older but I think it’s safe to say the Saltire is one of if not the oldest flag in Europe and around half of the known world at that time
These English punters wae a their wee flegs are total newbies
Picts, Scots and Strathclyde Britons fought that day but it was the Pic t King who led the great raid. The Angle’s seriously outnumbered the ( Scottish ) forces, but they decided to stand and fight rather than give up the vast numbers of cattle, horses and slaves
I’m strongly in favour of being a citizen of a republic, with an elected head of state along the lines of the constitutional arrangement in Ireland. I will be attending the republican rally on the afternoon of Saturday 6 May on Calton Hill, Edinburgh.
However, when the Scottish Government proposed to retain the monarchy if Scotland voted for independence in 2014, I was sanguine – sensible politics, abolishing the monarchy is a different battle, one for another day, perhaps for a different generation than mine. I’m still sanguine: first things first!
Over recent days there has been much media coverage of Alex Salmond’s comments on the upcoming coronation.
In making much of NOT attending the Coronation but attending an AUOB rally in Glasgow instead, I’ve seen him quoted as saying he would have “put a ring of policemen around Edinburgh Castle” were he still first minister to prevent the Stone of Destiny from being taken to London. I’ve seen him reported saying this about the FM’s attendance at the Coronation: “any self-respecting nationalist First Minister should be with the masses in Glasgow not the classes in London.”
So Mr Salmond is clearly out to gain political capital – or is it exacerbate political division? One can only imagine what he and his allies will say in their speeches on Saturday’s AUOB event.
But then someone this morning reminded me that Mr Salmond’s position on the monarchy in 2013/14 may not have been strictly pragmatic, may not have been strictly tactical. I was referred to earlier media reports:
The Herald 10 May 2012 on the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee: Mr Salmond is quoted: “The official celebrations of the Diamond Jubilee will, therefore, present a fine opportunity for all here in Scotland to celebrate the Queen’s reign and reflect on Her Majesty’s hard work and achievements while marking this outstanding service.”
The article notes: ‘The First Minister added that the Scottish Government would play a full part in the celebrations on June 4, insisting there would be cut-price events “in line with the Queen’s wishes”.’
The Guardian 25 May 2011: ‘Prospect has just issued a press release about Salmond’s interview with James Macintyre, the magazine’s politics editor:
“There is a better case for an English republic than a Scottish one,” he says. Mainstream Scotland, in his view, is not anti-monarchy, because the royals don’t define a Scots class structure as they do in England. “I’m not saying Scotland is a classless society,” he says, “but I still think inequalities in Scotland are not generally linked to the monarchy.”
‘Salmond said he loved the royal wedding, which he attended, because it broke the traditional “English reserve” and ushered in a “carnival-like atmosphere” which he likens to Hogmanay. He says he “missed a trick” after failing to plaster Edinburgh in royal colours: “I was too busy with the campaign but I should have had this entire city – I would have had – covered in royal standards”.
‘Salmond’s remarks are no doubt designed to reassure Scots who feel uncomfortable about severing ancient links if Scotland becomes independent ‘
Daily Record, 28 April 2011 on the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton: ‘Mr Salmond said he was looking forward to the occasion “enormously”.
He said: “From the seating plan we have a good view and, more importantly, Mrs Salmond has a good view. We’ll be sitting beside the first ministers from Wales and Northern Ireland. “It’s going to be a grand occasion and I’m looking forward to representing Scotland.”
Mr Salmond added: “As a St Andrews graduate myself, it adds a bit of romance to it and certainly gives it a Scottish dimension. There might also be a bob or two in it for Scottish tourism. A Scottish dimension is never a bad thing.”
A reluctant or actually an enthusiastic monarchist back then?
Which FM in the history of the Holyrood Parliament has been explicit in his republicanism? The one Mr Salmond implies is not a ‘self-respecting’ one for attending the Coronation to represent Sccotland?
Salmond’s a point scoring political blowhard, if he were still FM he’d be attending the thing, it’s not the person who’s attending that’s important, it’s the office of FM that’s representing Scotland, not the person inside the suit or frock
In other words ,Salmond is a two-faced b*stard !
Aye, pretty much that
Just found that Mr Salmond attended the Accession Council in September 2022 as a member of the Privy Council, including the part where those in attendance proclaim the King.
From Alex Salmond’s twitter account: @AlexSalmond
‘Attending #AccessionCouncil this morning, where a slimmed down Privy Council of 200 meets to proclaim King Charles III. The longest serving PCs now are the mid 70s intake of Roy Hattersley & Bill Rodgers, but they joined more than 20 years after the last Accession Council (1/7)’
8:00 am · 10 Sep 2022
From the Herald, 10 September 2022: ‘Alex Salmond to attend Accession Council after top Alba official calls for monarchy to be axed’
‘The Accession Council is usually convened within 24 hours of the death of a monarch, but it has been delayed after the death of Queen Elizabeth was not announced until the evening on Thursday.
‘It is divided into two parts, with THE FIRST PART SEEING THE PRIVY COUNCIL PROCLAIM THE SOVEREIGN and the second part seeing King Charles III hold his first Privy Council.
‘After confirming his attendance, Mr Salmond referred to the new monarch swearing an oath to uphold the Claim of Right of 1689 during the Privy Council as the “sort of history which can shape the future”.’
‘Although traditionally all 700 privy counsellors would attend, this Accession Council has been dramatically scaled down to a lack of space and concerns over safety.’
On the Accession Council, the Privy Council Office on its website explains: ‘Formed of certain Privy Counsellors, Great Officers of State, the Lord Mayor and High Sheriffs of the City of London, Realm High Commissioners, some senior civil servants and certain others invited to attend, and is held (without the Sovereign) to formally announce the death of the Monarch and proclaim the succession of the new Sovereign and to make certain consequential Orders of Council mainly relating to the Proclamation.’
There are currently over 700 members of the Privy Council. So I think we can assume that Mr Salmond’s presence at an event where he proclaimed the new sovereign was not essential to ensure the event was quorate!
Good stuff.
https://archive.is/BWPYO
SNP sign contract with new auditors after previous firm quit
THE SNP have signed a contract with new auditors after more than six months without any accountants…
…The First Minister confirmed AMS Accountants Group, based in Manchester, is to work with the party on completing accounts for both the party and the SNP Westminster Group.
The herald, hootsmon, record, STV and the bbc will be disappointed at this news.
Kate Forbes’ article in The National on freedom of speech as a fundamental human right and essential to liberal democracy.
Monarchy debate shows necessity of freedom of speech
https://archive.fo/43jjA
Freedom of speech also means the freedom not to listen to anyone’s speech, which is the fine line Joanna Cherry is attempting to nullify by quoting law at folk and wielding it like an I am the law Judge Dredd weapon
In the current case I understand the venue cannot operate because staff refuse to work at the event, so you can understand the venue’s position, they aren’t going to sack their staff over it nor can they force them to work, so threatening them with law solves nothing but to make folk even angrier
Let’s see how this ends. Humza Yousaf has also said he hopes Joanna Cherry’s event can go ahead and that the venue can find a compromise. Thankfully, the SNP leadership are speaking out about this, some of them anyway.
I’m sick of cancel culture and the sooner people who are responsible for public institutions find out what their legal obligations are the better.
Humza Yousaf hopes Joanna Cherry’s Fringe event can go ahead
https://archive.fo/cs5ui
According to Cherry on bbc radio many snp members agree with her views on transgender but are too scared to speak.
There’s is Free speech and then there is grandstanding.
Seems Humza is more gracious in his opinions.
Just a guess but I’m not entirely sure it’s about what Joanna Cherry says about anything, I think it’s more about the way and how she says it
Folk just don’t seem to like her as a person, I’ve never met her but people do screw their faces up at the mention of her name
Aww…that right aye?
I love the way you sang Joanna’s praises when she won the proroguation case ….but now she’s ‘a bat out of hell?’
Take a look at yourself man.
She did not win the prorogation case much as she tries to promote that idea. The case was brought by a group of 75 cross party MPs and Peers of which she was one. Jolyon Maugham, then QC now KC, was also part of the group. Lord Wolfe the Lord Advocate, had a role in the case when it came before the Scottish Court of Session.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/09/16/challenging-prorogation-understanding-the-court-of-session-decision-and-anticipating-that-of-the-supreme-court/
Tam the bam
I have been known to agree with my mother in law.
Doesn’t mean I have to at all times. Case by case.
On SGP I see independista aka Mr Angryand the remaining 2% are wetTing themselves desperate to see the ex Fm from 9 years ago at the proposed AUOB rally but worries about the ex Fm Sturgeon not attending. I am sure she has better things today than listen to sad old men and the Trotsky brexiters looking for a revolution but supporting a royalist supporter!
No wonder as one pointed out the Edinburgh rally looks more promising. 🏴
I phoned her this morning, she’s having a bath and washing her hair that day
🛁🇪🇺🏴
Sometimes it’s hard not to laugh disrespectfully!
In a document issued by ‘Buckingham Palace’ entitled ‘Roles to be performed at the Coronation Service at Westminster Abbey’, readers are given a quote from one of those granted a ‘role’, namely the Rt. Reverend and Rt. Hon the Lord Chartres.
Source: https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activity/2023-04-27/roles-to-be-performed-at-the-coronation-service-at-westminster-abbey
This is what the noble Lord has to say (with my emphasis): “The ceremonies of the Coronation are ancient but they have been FRESHLY INTERPRETED FOR OUR CONTEMPORARY WORLD.”
His reference to ‘our contemporary world’ is followed by a description of the Coronation ceremony (I select from a list of 12 items for brevity):
‘The following will then process to the altar carrying His Majesty’s Regalia:
General Sir Gordon Messenger, the Constable of HM Tower of London – Carrying St Edward’s Crown as Lord High Steward of England
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry KT – Carrying the Sceptre with Cross
Lord Hastings and The Earl of Loudoun – Carrying the Spurs
Air Chief Marshal the Lord Peach – Carrying the Sword of Mercy (The Curtana)
General the Lord Richards of Herstmonceux – Carrying the Sword of Spiritual Justice’
And maintaining this ‘contemporary’ theme, it goes on (here I select from a list of nine items):
‘During the Coronation Service the Regalia will be presented to Their Majesties. Those presenting have been chosen on the advice of Government. Those presenting Regalia to His Majesty will be:
The Lord Carrington, Lord Great Chamberlain – Presenting the Spurs
The Lord (Syed) Kamall – Presenting the Armills
Lord (Indarjit) Singh of Wimbledon – Presenting the Coronation Glove’
I could go on: this is a quite remarkable document describing the Coronation ceremonies and clearly cements their ‘contemporary’ credentials!
Sounds like a script for a reprise of ‘Lords of the Armills’.
Need to watch if these characters turn up in a new Lord of the Rings.
Most of these ‘Educated’ participants must know it’s a load of ……
Medical care in the community is available.
My favourite royal poem:
“Like jewels in a crown, the precious stones glittered in the King’s round metal hat.”
Cabarets and other Coronation events being cancelled in the garden and pleasant land
Oh dear! Never mind!
https://inews.co.uk/news/coronation-events-being-cancelled-due-to-lack-of-interest-2311693?ico=most_popular
“scarecrow competitions”
WTF?
How we roared!
Green and pleasant land! Predictive text victim!
He’s not the pheasant plucker
I see that republican groups have been told they can protest the coronation as long as they are mindful of the new (rushed through) legislation on protesting…so no banners, shouting, linking arms or being negative or something.
And no litter under pain of increased fines and or public service sentence to clean it up
@Handandshrimp,
May 2, 2023 at 11:57 am
“The people that close down politicians like Cherry do so because they think they are right. The book burners always think they are right and therefore it is OK this time. It isn’t OK. Fascism comes in many different dress styles but the underlying authoritarianism remains the same.
I have no idea if I agree with Cherry or not. Even if I disagree I still think she has the right to speak.
I do not like the direction we are heading.”
=======
Excellent. From the Beatles era the TV Parlour game is recalled: arrange the following into a well-known phrase or saying
‘the on nail hits head the’
Despite his predisposed detachment from reality, not even Charles can be blind to the public push-back – The majority of the public had no interest in his coronation flummery to begin with, but all the media promotion has managed to achieve is increasing public revulsion to it.
Even Lord Ashcroft’s infamous polling was drafted as support, to “prove” the public were fully engaged and supportive of the monarchy – The ridicule was excoriating, but it destroyed any remaining notions that polling was an innocent observer rather than political nudging.
As an exercise in preserving and protecting the ruling class it has been tone deaf – Even the sycophantic Witchell could not have made a bigger hash of it than the rest of the media have accomplished.
Yet it is the rushed through legislation over public demonstrations which has raised eyebrows and raised tempers, HMG ushering in some of the most draconian laws in UK history outside of being at war.
Yet going to war with the public is exactly what the Tories are doing – It will assuredly usher in their own political demise, but they are in danger of bringing down the entire ruling class including the media and monarchy with them.
Interesting. I was about to ask the latest on #caravangate given it seems to have gone all silent? Then lo and behold, Google news serves me up the below over my morning coffee.
I have to say I’m not entirely surprised by this frontpage, and the Daily ‘Scottish Paper printed in Scotland sold by Scottish shops by Scottish people etc’ Record in particular have been like a dog with a bone on this story. Or potential non-story they are now telling us. They did bring us such ground breaking new as the pens, pots ‘n’ pans and a fridge revelations after all, so seem to really have their finger on the blue tent pulse.
Article: https://archive.is/6IIKX
Of course if it is a Police Scotland debacle, it will somehow be the SNP’s doing. That we can be sure of!
Meanwhile, in other news, the KKK have asked to book the local village hall for a gathering. The really like the fire pit in the garden outside. The hall committee is not allowed to say no as that would apparently be ‘discrimination based on the guy making the application being heterosexual and having deep philosophical beliefs’ on a particular issue – equivalent to a religion some might say.
Ho hum. Another crazy day in the sinking ship that is HMS Britannia.
The recker is the mirror with the 2 outer covers designed as an old chip shop wrapper.
The internal contents are englander propaganda, hell even the agony aunt’s stories are the same.
You can get advice on a will, unfortunately it’s in englander law.
You donate £1.20 for 8 pages of footy and SNP bad news.
Glad I don’t donate , directly, just look at it from the library.
The other history and propaganda sheets are the same, english content with an outer wrapping.
The Star always had a funny front page.
I see Ross mentions the Highland Clearances and tries it to link with the protected sea zones. Pathetic.
As far as I am aware the tories or for that matter royalty did not apologise for enforcing the Highland Clearances on the population. Even wider those Scots forced into the plantation of Ireland in many instances had no choice. The landowners had the power.
I await the fulsome apology and reparation to the Scots and our Irish cousins.
As for the marine protective areas it is necessary to protect the communities.
The loss of plant life, crustaceans and fish will not help the fishermen if they are “farmed” or “fished”out.
The brexiters didn’t care about inshore fishing. There was no consultation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221020140618.htm#:~:text=Using%20data%20collected%20onboard%20fishing,by%2054%25%20in%20nearby%20waters.
Tory hypocrisy once again.