Scotland Won't Pay Their Contribution To Their Queen!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't know how to feel about this Family any more...

National treasures?
Economic must have?
Benefit scroungers?
Antiquated tax waste?
Guardian's of the Isle at the elite round table?



There is clearly a fair argument to be made for all of these.

So I guess it boils down to whether the pros outweigh the cons...

Maybe.

ATS Family?

or Royals?


i would expect most people should feel the same in the modern society we live in, to have someone who holds a position (even if only a figure head) based solely on family name and warrants respect purely because they won a fight a long time ago is ridiculous...

we happily on ATS attack the families of the bilderberg group the old families which have controlled finances and industry forever, yet, the same people who find the those families to be corrupt are totally OK with the old Royal God given bloodline rite of having a palace and helicopter maintained by the UK tax payer?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: EA006

Yes and? Moan to the pm about it the queen doesn't have any power to change austerity measures.
Im in the majority in the uk I recognise what the royals do for my country and wish them to continue.
They will also for many more generations.

The "royals" ROFL! The highest paid inbred welfare family in the world. I'm in Canada and we should have divorced these bitches ages ago.

Cheers - Dave

These threads typically break down to the "Queen is a waste" and "Queen is not a waste" arguments. However, let's take it as a given the monarch will remain in situ for the foreseeable future as the majority of people don't want a republic.

To the OP. There is crass politics here. These are the politics of division, not difference. It is in the nationalists (SNP) interest to find ways to introduce division as this provides a win-win for them. In this case, painting the Queen as part of the English establishment and immune from austerity, helps force division. No mention of the fact that the Queen is also the monarch of Scotland and that the nationalists were very keen to remove any talk of republicanism during the referendum as it's unpopular.

This is going to be a feature of the future. Death by a thousand cuts. Little jabs here and there which serve to increase the divide. The subject is irrelevant. Today it's the Queen, tomorrow it'll be subsidies for wind farms, subsidies for oil, subsidies for haggis farming, spending on a bridge in London, or a canal in Herefordshire (how do they help Scotland) etc... You get my drift. Let's count this as the beginning of a river of complaining from the nationalists.

originally posted by: paraphi
These threads typically break down to the "Queen is a waste" and "Queen is not a waste" arguments. However, let's take it as a given the monarch will remain in situ for the foreseeable future as the majority of people don't want a republic.

To the OP. There is crass politics here. These are the politics of division, not difference. It is in the nationalists interest to find ways to introduce division as this provides a win-win for them. In this case, painting the Queen as part of the English establishment and immune from austerity, helps force division. No mention of the fact that the Queen is also the monarch of Scotland and that the nationalists were very keen to remove any talk of republicanism during the referendum as it's unpopular.

This is going to be a feature of the future. Death by a thousand cuts. Little jabs here and there which serve to increase the divide. The subject is irrelevant. Today it's the Queen, tomorrow it'll be subsidies for wind farms, subsidies for oil, subsidies for haggis farming, spending on a bridge in London, or a canal in Herefordshire (how do they help Scotland) etc... You get my drift. Let's count this as the beginning of a river of complaining from the nationalists.

Who are the "nationalists" do you mean the SNP?

a reply to: Shiloh7

Payback for what they did to MARY Queen of Scot!

a reply to: paraphi
Only problem being that this is pretty much a completely made up story by the UK press. The treasury have confirmed that there is no effect on the funding which comes straight from the treasury. So please explain about this "river of complaining"

This has been great fun. I attach a comment made from youcannotmakeitup

"This family has not paid inheritance tax for queen mum. Charles sold his own trees to himself and did not pay tax when he bought land for himself and his business partner - a supermarket chain. He obviously is enjoying an unfair advantage over other people. Why should the NHS, education, police face cuts when this wealthy billionaire family needs a rise? After all, the UK can still function without charles flying a plane to the US prancing around. .. A lot of PR people active here shouting down any possible debates ". Regarding queen mum I wonder if the bookies ever got the huge sum of money her gambling owed them, I doubt it?

When you look at charles it seems as though he is a past master at blurring the boundaries between his Duchy finances and the crown ones. When you look at the cost to the public for the last trip he and Camilla made was nearly £500,000 so add the rest in with their jollies and trips etc and we pay one hell of a lot of money for their lifestyle on top of the tax payers money given to them each year.

The biggest telling factor of exactly what financial benefit we the public get from the monarchy is that the information is so hidden its clearly not in our favour, otherwise everything would be transparent.

I noticed no one wanted to look at whether when they came to the UK they actually brought assets with them, again this is so well hidden, one wonders.

Regarding the press coverage the royals get, bearing in mind rothschild manages all queens' finances and the position that puts him and his family in, his cronies are hardly going to let his ticket to posh have a bad press are they - it opens too many doors and honours?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Indeed, it is reported that the Scottish Government has confirmed that the boat won't be rocked, for now at least. This was a story reported in media across the UK, including in Scotland. However, there continues to be a dispute over some aspects of the Sovereign Grant and how devolution impacts Crown Estate earnings, so the story will doubtless resurface.

Ah, the river of complaining. This is just a predicted flow of negativity that will happen. It has started with the removal of the lucrative (to Scotland) wind farm subsidy. Whether this story about the Queen has legs, it has highlighted an issue that some will hang on to.

a reply to: GonzoSinister

Scotland needs to buy up all the Rebel Flags and fly them high. The Royal Red Dragon Blood days are over,or are they? How deep is Royals connection to the global elite?

a reply to: paraphi
You are absolutely correct that it does raise a wider issue of what expenditure is for UK benefit. By any economic measure any benefit to having a royal family is overwhelmingly to London. Yet the cost is UK wide. This seems to be the case for many things due to the massive over centralisation (political, cultural and economic) in the UK.
Now whether there are other non economic benefits to having a royal family is another matter. Personally I think they are a blight on our non existent constitution however that is a subjective view.