Rugster Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 3 hours ago, NewBornBairn said: Don't usually visit this thread but this headline caught my eye today - Transport Minister Humza Yousef to witness ScotRail commute Well that's fuckin big of him. Why is this even news, far less headline news? Surely to f**k a Transport Minister should be checking out the transport infrastructure on a daily basis? What, you mean just travel around all day every day? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38026073?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_scotland_news&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland Bid to appeal against minimum alcohol pricing to Supreme Court What a waste of time and money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I think John McDonnell has got it right on this Buckingham Palace thing. Spending money to keep a historically significant building in good repair isn't the problem, the problem is that we still allow the Royal Family to exist and reside in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, jmothecat said: I think John McDonnell has got it right on this Buckingham Palace thing. Spending money to keep a historically significant building in good repair isn't the problem, the problem is that we still allow the Royal Family to exist and reside in it. The problem in this instance was allowing the Royal family to duck out of constant remedial work with their own cash then expecting us to pick up the tab as it's now a really big number. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 The royals hate the place apparently. Prince Charles suggested turning it into a hotel. It's not like they'd be homeless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 They should be made to put turnstyles in and let people in for a look round whenever they want. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Turn it into an art gallery, move the Royals somewhere else. Everyone happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Art galleries? Hotels? Museums? What about a home for all of those hit by severe austerity cuts while these cnuts have been lording it over us? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 They should be made to put turnstyles in and let people in for a look round whenever they want. And poke them with sticks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 20, 2016 Author Share Posted November 20, 2016 1 hour ago, jmothecat said: I think John McDonnell has got it right on this Buckingham Palace thing. Spending money to keep a historically significant building in good repair isn't the problem, the problem is that we still allow the Royal Family to exist and reside in it. Brexit! Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary! Trump!! jmo agreeing with John McDonnell!!!!! The world has gone mad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Art galleries? Hotels? Museums? What about a home for all of those hit by severe austerity cuts while these cnuts have been lording it over us? I'm not convinced that would be the best use of resources. Buckingham palace is a one of a kind, it's historically and culturally significant so using it just to house people (whether Royal or not) seems like a dire waste of a unique opportunity. There are other buildings we can use for the homeless and the royals which would free up Buckingham palace to be used by everyone in our society. A free entry art gallery seems a sensible choice and good use for a state owned building. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 44 minutes ago, Poo said: Art galleries? Hotels? Museums? What about a home for all of those hit by severe austerity cuts while these cnuts have been lording it over us? 5 minutes ago, jmothecat said: I'm not convinced that would be the best use of resources. Buckingham palace is a one of a kind, it's historically and culturally significant so using it just to house people (whether Royal or not) seems like a dire waste of a unique opportunity. There are other buildings we can use for the homeless and the royals which would free up Buckingham palace to be used by everyone in our society. A free entry art gallery seems a sensible choice and good use for a state owned building. But what would jesus do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 But what would jesus do? I really don't care. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 London's not exactly short of art galleries. They should house Syrian refugees in it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 20 minutes ago, jmothecat said: I'm not convinced that would be the best use of resources. Buckingham palace is a one of a kind, it's historically and culturally significant so using it just to house people (whether Royal or not) seems like a dire waste of a unique opportunity. There are other buildings we can use for the homeless and the royals which would free up Buckingham palace to be used by everyone in our society. A free entry art gallery seems a sensible choice and good use for a state owned building. Should we be maintaining things that are historically significant when it's things we're better off forgetting? Why hold onto things that only remind us of the shame of the human race? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Should we be maintaining things that are historically significant when it's things we're better off forgetting? Why hold onto things that only remind us of the shame of the human race? Because forgetting about them always works out well.Agree with the royal family or not they are part of our history and simply pretending otherwise would be ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Because forgetting about them always works out well.Agree with the royal family or not they are part of our history and simply pretending otherwise would be ridiculous. We've got Windsor Palace, Balmoral and other places for that. Buckingham Palace is an ugly monstrosity with a short history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, jmothecat said: Because forgetting about them always works out well. Agree with the royal family or not they are part of our history and simply pretending otherwise would be ridiculous. But they are not part of my history. I have rejected them since 1953. They are just a continuation of the English monarchy therefore have eff-all tae dae with Scotland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 It's not actually a particularly historically significant building either 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 But they are not part of my history. I have rejected them since 1953. They are just a continuation of the English monarchy therefore have eff-all tae dae with Scotland. Buckingham Palace isn't in Scotland anyway so if that's your view then does it matter to you what is done with the building? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.