Oath of Allegiance campaign

 

We have recently contacted Scottish ministers pressing that the Oath of Allegiance to Elizabeth I and her heirs and successors, sworn by MSPs prior to taking their seats at Holyrood as representatives of the people, be made voluntary rather than compulsory as soon as possible. As many MSPs and the First Minister state prior to taking the oath, their primary allegiance is to the Scottish people. We believe the oath sworn should refect that truth and an alternative oath should be drafted.

We’re asking that people contact their MSPs and press them politely on this issue. You can find out who your MSPs are here Find your MSPs  Currently some MSPs are members of Republic Scotland yet the first thing they must now do in a democratic Parliament to which they have been elected as representatives of the people is swear an oath they do not mean. That is a blight on the bud of Scottish democracy and must end.

We are calling for this now as the 320 year anniversary of the Glencoe massacre is on February 13th this year and this revolved around the clan Chief, MacIain, having been six days late in swearing an oath of allegiance to the king.

That day 13th February 1692 two companies of the Argyll regiment of the British Army were given an order signed by the king to massacre Scottish children in Glencoe. It was the orginal plan of the Secretrary of State, James Dalrymple Master of Stair who played a crucial role in the subsequent 1707 Treaty of Union, that all the clans be destroyed. ‘I hope the soldiers will not trouble the government with prisoners’ reads his letter to that effect. But they only had the excuse for the Macdonalds - the Chief had to make his way through blizzards and was an old man. He went to Inverlochy (renamed 'Fort William') and was told he had to sign at Inverary. But Glencoe was a public relations disaster as the soldiers had been guests of the Macdonalds for nearly two weeks prior to the massacre, unaware of the order to come, so the act was ‘murder under trust’. Of course they could not carry out their orders to the letter which were to ‘put all to the sword under seventy’that they ‘be cut off root and branch’and that MacIain’s ‘sons do upon no account escape your hands’. They used guns which alerted the whole glen. Many escaped including the Chief’s sons but 39 were murdered and died horribly including women and children and about the same number perished in the snow trying to flee.

The order is in the national Library of Scotland. (transcript below)

‘Sir,

You are hereby ordered to fall upon the rebels, the Macdonalds of Glencoe, and to put all to the sword under seventy. You are to have a special care that the old fox and his sons do upon no account escape your hands. You are to secure all the avenues that no man escape. This you are to put into execution at five of the clock precisely; and by that time, or very shortly after it, I'll strive to be at you with a stronger party. If I do not come to you at five, you are not to tarry for me, but to fall on. This is by the King's special command, for the good and safety of the country, that these miscreants be cut off root and branch. See that this be put in execution without feud or favour, else you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fit to carry Commission in the King's service. Expecting you will not fail in the fulfilling hereof, as you love yourself, I subscribe these with my hand at Ballachulish.

Feb 12, 1692

Robert Duncanson

For His Majesty's Service,

to Captain

Robert Campbell

of Glenlyon’

We say there should now be no forced oath of allegiance.  What kind of future do we want for Scotland?  Should it be one of reason, rights and common sense or should the first thing in the Parliament be a forced oppressive oath redolent of a tyranny that should be over?

This parcel of war criminals

 

Today's Scotsman contains an article which references the Master of Stair 'this most expert and effective advocate of the Union ' and orchestrator of it in 1707 who dropped dead a few days later after his drivel and iniquity. For some reason it fails to mention that for which he is even more infamous – he was one of the king's Scottish ministers found responsible by the inquiry into the order 'by the King's special command' in London to two companies of the Argyll regiment of the British army to massacre Scottish children at Glencoe. The king having signed the order shielded Stair from any punishment other than being dismissed from the Secretaryship of State. Of course the king slunk away unpunished.

Not just a parcel of rogues then, orchestrators of 'murder under trust', completely morally bankrupt, evil men.

And we're told there will be a king Charles and another king William. Really? 

Of course we have a king now, he's called David Cameron and he might have the tiniest of little minorities and have had to cook up a connivance with the LibDems but that's irrelevant once he is in Number 10 as then he has his shiny mitts on the royal prerogative and he now has more power in the confines of this country than Barack Obama has in America. He can take the country to war, write law, decree yachts, on his whim it stands. If there were a queen there she could do the same, and if there were a democratically elected governing body in the same city as she was, like say for instance a Greater London Council and she didn't like who the people of London had voted in she could simply say "I abolish you" and that would be that. And that's exactly what she did.  The royal prerogative might not actually be used to do things in every case but it can be used by the PM and by the Privy Council and lies behind the great power Prime Ministers have to see that their will is done.

So people of Scotland have given Alex Salmond an amazing democratic majority and David Cameron is coming at him with the autocratic, unaccountable, corrupting, dangerous, tyrannical, fundamentally evil power of a king. Westminster is a creaking ancient mess and so is the unwritten constitution full of pointless precedents and traditions, only those in the government have any power to do things and Cameron trumps all else. Half the government is unelected and so is the head of state. So quaint in a 21st century 'democracy' don't you find? So sick. Speaker John Bercow said to Paul Flynn MP when the latter was attempting to criticise Andrew Windsor's errors in judgement and boorish behaviour when representing the country as Trade Ambassador: "References to members of the Royal Family should be very rare, very sparing and very respectful. We have to be very careful in our handling of these matters."  How crawling.  How ridiculous. And the Speaker is all about the rules.

Scotland has a chance to escape this, to move into a new landscape where the people truly govern themselves. Only this will deactivate the SNP vast coalition with its one over-riding aim of independence, only then will Scottish politics breathe and move on. If we wait for more of the so benevolent 'giving' of powers that Cameron tries to kid us with as he 'gives' legal power (I give you the power to reform the cobweb-ridden half-baked joke that anachronistic Westminster 'democracy' is Cameron, get on with it, but you'd better be quick), where are the Crown estate and renewable energy powers Alex Salmond asked for with his huge mandate from the Scottish people?

Cameron and Westminster will give absolutely sweet FA powers to the people of Scotland, or England or anywhere else unless it's cooked up to the Westminster system's benefit. We must take those powers for ourselves. Absolutely all the way. Wake up, peoples of Britain.

'Born from Evil

the union, Jack
the butcher's apron'

Truth Must Out

It was a bad day for the monarchy when the Independent broke the story of palace attempts to gain access to money from the state poverty fund to pay their fuel bills. And for those in denial over this one - I have had a response from a monarchist just saying it’s not true - just remember the palace confirmed the story, it’s never been in any doubt whatsoever. This had been discovered through Freedom of Information requests which the palace has now been made exempt from, meaning that if this happened again we could not find out. A Republic spokesman was quoted on that day: “These documents are clear evidence of the contempt the Palace has for ordinary people in this country. We have our head of state demanding cash that has been set aside for low-income families, for the most vulnerable in our society.

“This sense of entitlement speaks volumes about the attitudes of the Windsors and their household. For them it’s all about take, take, take.” That was what most people felt. My partner when fuelling up at a garage that day was met by an enraged mechanic absolutely furious and outraged at the story and delighted to be shown a Republic membership card - the first he’d heard of it. The fact that the palace could even consider making such a request is astounding. While let’s remember when they were previously asked to by the government committee looking into their requests for more money they refused to open up the palace to the public for more days per year in order to be more self-sufficient, and they failed to deliver documents asked for by the same government committee. So they clearly feel they can do whatever they like, not what they’re asked to or for. A very similar response when Elizabeth decided to honour Andrew with one of the highest honours in her personal gift, after his associations with criminals, dictators, and a convicted paedophile came out, when the people, even government ministers were calling for him to be dropped from his position as Trade Ambassador - this was her considered response. And now despite having ‘stepped down’ from the position, there he is still flying off to Saudi Arabia on public money. Next year they’ll be trying hard to promote the monarchy as being all about a benign 85 year old woman. Do not be fooled. The monarchy is a vast, unaccountable institution comprised of many vested interests, the core family both complicit and sacrificial, and nothing about it is benign. This country is full of 85 year old women and they all deserve at least as much respect as Elizabeth Windsor, many of them rather more. Toadying, sycophancy, obsequious crawling behaviour to this institution and those who populate it is nothing short of a sickness.

We have to remember though, that the all-pervasive insidious nature of the institution means that many people are unconscious of its reality. The poverty fund story was a truth that got out and they’ve plugged that gap. We should publicise that truth loud and far and reiterate it, amongst others. We should concentrate on criticising the actions of the monarchy but to make it too much about the personalities involved is a counter-productive mistake - the perception could be that we’re criticising people when the truth is if we had a ‘royal’ family who were philanthropic, altruistic angels, well for one thing they would abolish themselves at that point, but we still wouldn’t want a monarchy because it’s not about them personally at all, they are to a greater or lesser extent puppets of the establishment and it’s the establishment which has to fall because it’s fundamentally wrong and damaging. There’s no point if we just get a new bunch - we don't want any, of any stripe, sex or religion. The most dignified and momentous thing that they could do now is to wait not upon the order of their going but to just bow to the advance of democracy in 2011, take up their sycophants, and go.

"You can't have Disneyland without Mickey Mouse."

One of the most common 'argument's 'for' the monarchy that we hear is this myth of the great tourism revenue the 'royal' family are purported to draw into the country. Even fairly intelligent people will trot out this commonly held belief as though it were some kind of unanswerable trump card. Embarrassing though this is as an argument for the basis of who a country's head of state should be, let's deal with it first as if it were a valid reason.

There is no actual basis in factual proof for this claim. Indeed quite the opposite would be the case, as the fact is that publicly owned palaces, castles and houses are being used as private residences by one family and they or their officials are blocking them being opened up to the public as a source of revenue. If this were not the case perhaps Buckingham Palace could be our Louvres displaying the 'royal' art collection, which is also owned by the public but which the public can currently see only 10% of (100,000+ items). But the situation now is that, although asked to by the previous government, the current custodians refuse to open up the palace more to even be self-sufficient, but come cap in hand to government asking for yet more money for its upkeep and fuel bills. source 

Also the 'royal' family are not themselves on display anywhere, so if any tourists did come here to view same, they're likely to be disappointed. Would you go to Norway, Denmark or Sweden to see their 'royal' families? Why do you think people would come here to see the Windsors? Despite the enormous hype surrounding 'royal' weddings Visit Britain's own data has shown tourists actually avoided this country in the periods surrounding them. link

But the crux of the matter is in fact "So what?" People are apparently wedded to this belief and the title of this blog was an 'argument' used on the radio by a monarchist who rang during a phone-in with Republic's Graham Smith. This crystallises the nonsense that this argument is. The land of Mickey Mouse does not have Mickey Mouse as head of state, it currently has Barack Obama and its head of state is accountable, removable and answerable to the people who elected him. We have a head of state chosen by accident of birth, who is none of these things, who is trundled about and whose speeches are scripted by others. We have the Mickey Mouse head of state, and it's embarrassing. Especially in 2011 when we go to war to 'bring democracy' to other countries, it looks extremely hypocritical when we ourselves can vote for less than half our government i.e. not for the House of Lords and not at all for our head of state.

With every new generation of 'royals' a claim of monarchic 'modernisation' is made - but nothing ever really changes. It's not in the interests of the people who take advantage of its unaccountability and secrecy, the anonymous officials who hide behind buildings "Buckingham Palace says" this and "Clarence House denies" that, who have access to millions in public money every year with opaque accountability - a system screaming out to be abused, where else would villains want to be? Neither is it in the interests of the politicians to change it as the dodgy deal done with monarchy centuries ago, before women could vote, before working men could vote, before any man who didn't own a certain amount of land could vote, hands the prime minister and privy council great powers - too much of the wrong kind of power. Not the accountable powers of elected representatives but the tyrannical powers of a monarch. This intolerable institution is suffocating for democracy, for the country and for the sacrificed human beings at its centre. "I'd rather have stayed in the navy, frankly." "Any bloody fool can lay a wreath at the thingammy." and what was Elizabeth's reaction when she saw that symbol of the great white hope for the monarchy and supposed tourist attraction, Kate's wedding dress display? "Horrid. Horrible. Creepy." Yes. It really is.

Paul Flynn MP's speech on 8th June 2011 on Philip's 90th birthday address in the Commons, in its entirety, from Hansard.

12.53 pm

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): The supreme achievement of the Duke of Edinburgh is that he is working at the age of 90. This is a magnificent example and one that has been followed by a constituent of mine, Mr Harry Polloway, who is working as a toastmaster at the age of 97. I last saw him in the Jewish cemetery in my constituency, where we were commemorating the death of May Mendleson, who died last year at the age of 108. Continuing work into that period of life is a wonderful example to set, and one that we can look at with some embarrassment and shame in the House, where I believe the oldest Member—a distinguished Member—is just 80 years of age, and we have only five Members over the age of 76.
This group of people are disgracefully under-represented in the House. If we are to have a proper reflection of senior citizens, we must look to have all-80-year-old shortlists at the next general election. In the light of the heroic examples set by Prince Philip, Harry Polloway and May Mendleson, that fault needs to be corrected.
However, my purpose in speaking today is to make another point. As someone who is not a royalist and is happy to say that I am a republican and always have been, I want to ask why on earth, in this age, the address is to be “humble”. Are members of the royal family superior beings to the rest of us? Are we inferior beings to them? Is Prince Philip superior to Harry Polloway and May Mendleson? That was the feeling of the House seven centuries ago, when we accepted the rules under which we speak now.
We live in an egalitarian time when we recognise the universality of the human condition, in which royals and commoners share the same strengths and frailty. In the House, when we speak of the royals—not just the monarch, but all the family, without any limit—we are denied the chance of making any derogatory comment. That might extend to first cousins who are a long way distant from the monarch. There is no question but that the monarch—the Head of State—should remain above the political fray. We have been well served by this, particularly recently.
However, if these occasions are to be greatly valued, it should be possible for Members to utter the odd syllable that might be critical. I do not have anything to say in this case, but the sycophancy described by the Prime Minister when he referred to someone asking Prince Philip a fairly obvious question when he came off a plane must sicken the royal family. When they have an excess of praise of this kind, it is devalued.

Paul Flynn MP's full comment in Parliament today on the Prime Minister (I mean, sinister)'s 'humble address' to 'prince' Philip.

"Why on earth is this a humble address in this age? Are the royal family superior beings to the rest of us? Are we inferior beings to them? This was the feeling of the House seven centuries ago when we accepted rule under which we speak now. We live in an egalitarian time where we recognise the universality of the human condition, in which royals and commoners share the same strengths and frailties."

Also please sign the petition to

Change the National Assembly for Wales' oath of allegiance to one to the People, not the Queen!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/change-the-oath-of-allegiance/

Facebook refusing another link to Walesonline - 'Republican AM to snub Queen’s Senedd opening

• by Robin Turner, Western Mail
• Jun 6 2011

A REPUBLICAN Welsh AM is to snub a visit to the Welsh Government by the Queen this week.
South West Wales Plaid Cymru AM Bethan Jenkins will spend the day of the Queen’s opening of the fourth session of the government at the Senedd in Cardiff Bay tomorrow visiting businesses in Bridgend to find out if they are beginning to emerge from recession.
Ms Jenkins said: “This is the second time I’ve decided not to attend the royal opening of the Senedd.
“As a republican, I have no interest in meeting either the Queen or any member of the royal family.

“My wish is for Wales to become a modern, independent country, and I cannot see any place for an outdated concept like the monarchy within it.
“In order to progress towards becoming a modern and successful country, the most important thing we have to do is get the economy going again.
“The past decade has not been kind to Welsh business and the Welsh Government must do what it can to enable companies in towns like Bridgend to thrive and grow.
“It is my job as an Assembly Member to scrutinise the work of the Welsh Government and press it to provide opportunity for the economy.
“One of the best ways I can do that is by bringing views back from the business coal face.”
Ms Jenkins said she would like to hear from any member of the public in Bridgend who wants an issue to be aired in the Senedd.'