WaffenThinMint Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 30 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. The trouble is that it's historical and cultural significance in a British context to be honest aren't any greater than that of a large number of other historical buildings in the country. It's only been since the times of Silly Billy that Bucks became a royal residence & even then it wasn't until Victoria that it became a semi-permanent one. But yes, agree completely this is a waste of a unique opportunity. Turf the royals out, repair it, give it to English Heritage, and let's have another London site to fleece gullible American tourists of their ill gotten money. It would also make a bloody excellent setting for outdoor concerts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, jmothecat said: 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? It does as Scottish taxpayers will be paying a portion of the costs of any repairs. Hopefully in the not too distant future it will be in a foreign country and, as you say, they can do what they want with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said: The trouble is that it's historical and cultural significance in a British context to be honest aren't any greater than that of a large number of other historical buildings in the country. It's only been since the times of Silly Billy that Bucks became a royal residence & even then it wasn't until Victoria that it became a semi-permanent one. But yes, agree completely this is a waste of a unique opportunity. Turf the royals out, repair it, give it to English Heritage, and let's have another London site to fleece gullible American tourists of their ill gotten money. It would also make a bloody excellent setting for outdoor concerts. I've made a start on the guillotine I'll need a volunteer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar 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? On that premise, should we forget the Holocaust? 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 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. I'm as republican as the next man but... Given that George I Was a German with 2 German parents, 3 German Grandparents and a granny from Fife being too English is not the first thing I'd choose to criticise the monarchy for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 On that premise, should we forget the Holocaust? What Holocaust? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 39 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: I'm as republican as the next man but... Given that George I Was a German with 2 German parents, 3 German Grandparents and a granny from Fife being too English is not the first thing I'd choose to criticise the monarchy for. Lizzie II, Willie IV, Eddie VII & VIII, all the previous ones were English monarchs - no British but English. German Georgie was the first monarch of that name. But you can bet your bottom bawbee that if there had been an English monarch by the name of George then German Georgie would have reflected that fact. I'm as republican as the next man but...and so am I. The point is that history books will show that Britain (as far as the monarchy is concerned) is just a continuation of England. I didnae sign up for that in 1707 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 On that premise, should we forget the Holocaust? What Holocaust? Wisbit incoming! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I was reading an interesting and far more informed take on the Buckingham Palace thing elsewhere. The Crown Estate, ie everything owned by the Royal Family, brings in around £300m a year. This is handed over to the treasury who keeps 85% and returns 15% as the Civil List. Everything the Queen takes as "income" from the Civil List she pays income tax on under a voluntary arrangement. To cover the repairs to Buckingham Palace, the Treasury is going to keep 75% and return 25% for ten years. Nothing to do with taxpayers, it's the Royal's own money. Buckingham Palace is actually owned by a Trust with Parliament and the Monarch being trustees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I was reading an interesting and far more informed take on the Buckingham Palace thing elsewhere. The Crown Estate, ie everything owned by the Royal Family, brings in around £300m a year. This is handed over to the treasury who keeps 85% and returns 15% as the Civil List. Everything the Queen takes as "income" from the Civil List she pays income tax on under a voluntary arrangement. To cover the repairs to Buckingham Palace, the Treasury is going to keep 75% and return 25% for ten years. Nothing to do with taxpayers, it's the Royal's own money. Buckingham Palace is actually owned by a Trust with Parliament and the Monarch being trustees. Link? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Just another message board I'm afraid, but I found this on Wiki - Quote Under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the system of funding the Royal Household by a mixture of Civil List payments and Grants-in-Aid was replaced. From 1 April 2012 a single annual Sovereign Grant has been paid by the Treasury. The level of funding for the Royal Household is now linked to the Government's revenue from The Crown Estate. The Sovereign Grant Annual Report states that the Sovereign Grant was £31 million for 2012-13, £36.1 million for 2013-14[11]and £37.9 million for 2014-15. The amount of the Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year that began two years previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Republicans in France had their first round primary today. Looks likely Fillon and Juppe will go on to a run-off next week, as Sarkozy is in 3rd.Winner of that likely to face Le Pen in the election run-off early next year. I think Hollande and his socialists are 4th/5th in the opinion polls! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Hollande favourability ratings are 4%. Cameron's were much higher even when the putting his penis in a dead pig's mouth came out. f**k knows what Hollande's been up to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Scottish Daily Mail in shock "lying through teeth" revelation. http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-left-out/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 All tories are clueless sociopaths. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poo Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said: Scottish Daily Mail in shock "lying through teeth" revelation. http://wingsoverscotland.com/whats-left-out/ It doesn't fit the narrative mate. Edited November 21, 2016 by Poo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevthedee Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 WOS is the nationalist porn mag,you all get a hard on when looking at it,pure filth so it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, kevthedee said: WOS is the nationalist porn mag,you all get a hard on when looking at it,pure filth so it is. 6 hours ago, Poo said: It doesn't fit the narrative mate. Yip 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever_blueco Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 On 20 November 2016 at 12:13, Wee Willie said: It does as Scottish taxpayers will be paying a portion of the costs of any repairs. Hopefully in the not too distant future it will be in a foreign country and, as you say, they can do what they want with it. She would still be our queen in an independent Scotland 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.