Britishness doing fine?

A new MORI poll about identities shows Britishness seems to be doing fine in its three constituent parts of Great Britain:

81% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, compared with 87% in Wales and with 70% in Scotland and it’s worth noting that, that for all the focus on the role on the Union in Scotland, 71% in London felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, virtually the same percentage as in Scotland.

The regional identifications were stronger but the poll seems to indicate that the vast majority have no difficulty with multiple overlapping identities:

* 82% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to England
* 91%% in Scotland felt a strong sense of belonging to Scotland
* 95% in Wales felt a strong sense of belonging to Wales

PS I am away for the day so apologies to anyone I have been debating with on other threads it will be this evening before I can respond.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    N.Ireland would have a fairly high percentage also.

  • The Truth

    Is Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal your homeland?

  • smcgiff

    Bertie might agree with him on Cavan though!

  • overehere

    I say, off topic and all, but have you noticed the absolute rubbish Iris robinson spouts in the New letter. Do you know if she gets paid for it?

    If she does maybe I will have a go myself after all it does not look that difficult just catch some loyalist/unionist/bogeyman and there you go no need to do any research just spout what comes off the top of your head…………..money for old rope !!

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘N.Ireland would have a fairly high percentage also’

    Really……wow, I wonder why?

  • AntiChrist

    So this is fascinating.

    Such a high percentage of people living in Britain feel a sense of belonging to erm.. Britain.

  • Dec

    As one commentator on the MORI site says “you get the answer you want with these things by how you frame the question.”

    Of course, in FD’s case, it might be suggested he starts the thread he wants depending on the answers. Hence I don’t recall him starting at thread for the responses contained in 24th British Social Attitudes survey (Jan 2008).

    Some particular highlights are:

    Only 13% of people born and living in England, and 3% of people born and living in Scotland, describe themselves as ‘only’ or ‘mainly’ British…
    …Gordon Brown’s premiership has once again brought national identity, and ‘Britishness’ in particular, to the top of the political debate. The report shows that fewer people now describe themselves as British:

    • When asked to choose just one national identity for themselves, four in ten people (39%) in England say that they are British, down from over six in ten (63%) in 1992. Then three in ten (31%)said they were English; now nearly half (47%) do so.

    • In 1974, three in ten people (31%) in Scotland said they were British, now half this proportion (14%) do so. The proportion choosing Scottish has gone up from 65% to 78%.

    • But when people are allowed to choose more than one national identity, seven in ten (68%) in England choose British, as do four in ten (43%) in Scotland. The most subtle way of asking about national identity allows people to weigh up a ‘national’ identity (English or Scottish) against a ‘state’ identity (British). The survey asked this of those born and living in
    England or Scotland (or ‘natives’). This shows that:
    • Few English or Scottish natives think of themselves as ‘only’ or ‘mainly’ British: 13% in England and 3% in Scotland.
    • Nearly half of English natives (46%) say that they are ‘equally English and British’. One in five (21%) Scottish natives describe themselves as ‘equally Scottish and British’.
    • The most popular response from Scottish natives is to describe oneself as being ‘only’ or ‘mainly’
    Scottish, chosen by nearly three-quarters (73%) of people. Far fewer – 37% – English natives describe themselves as being ‘only’ or ‘mainly’ English.

    However, both surveys appear to agree that when discussing ‘Britishness’, they’re not interested in what anyone here thinks.

  • Greenflag

    ‘Such a high percentage of people living in Britain feel a sense of belonging to erm.. Britain.

    LOL 🙂

    So we Irish (on this island North and South ) have a slightly greater sense of belonging to Ireland than the English have of belonging to England ? but less of a sense of belonging to ?Ireland than the Welsh have of Wales or the Scots of Scotland . Now that is interesting

    For the purpose of this comparison I’m assuming (no jokes about assume please) that the entire Irish Nationalist/Republican element in the island’s population some 85% feel Irishness and the 15% Unionists don’t feel Irishness and instead feel more Britishness .

    ‘N.Ireland would have a fairly high percentage also’ ‘

    Not really it’s probably about 53.7698456 % if anybody is interested enough to bother .

    Poor Gordon . Such an excellent Chancellor and now he’s reduced to this kind of codology . Why doesn’t he amend /repeal the Act of Settlement, disestablish the Anglican Church, allow RC’s to succeed to the throne and that way he can leave a legacy -:).

    I mean even here in the Republic we repealed the ‘special position’ of the RC Church . You would think that Britain could do the same for the special position of the Anglican Church ?

    Surely the Anglicans can elect a kind of English Pope/Primate etc if they have to?

  • Democratic

    “Why doesn’t he amend /repeal the Act of Settlement, disestablish the Anglican Church, allow RC’s to succeed to the throne and that way he can leave a legacy -:).”

    If the RC church repeals Ne Temere (which has the same effect)then we can talk about repealing the act of settlement and we’ll all be on equal footing as it were….

  • perci

    fair-deal
    I noticed NI wasn’t mentioned once in the article.
    Why do some people in NI call themselves British?

  • agh

    because they have a british passport, have the queens head in their pocket, pay tax to the british government, get free medical treatment etc etc etc etc. sorry, maybe that was a rhetorical question lol

  • perci

    agh
    so how is it that NI is never mentioned in these surveys?
    Is it because NI is not actually part of GB?
    So the people living in NI are not actually British.
    They are northern irish, which is currently part of the UK.
    Isn’t that more accurate?
    Is this a sore point for some folks? lol

  • Orangeman

    Since I want to die an englishman and before that day I worship everthing english I think that they should have had the decency to include me in that survey. Bloody Brits, I mean my ken fook.

  • Steve

    Orangemen

    If you were born or raised in Ireland then you can never die and englishman, at least according to the english you will always be Irish.

    Good luck on that though

  • George

    Democratic,
    If the RC church repeals Ne Temere (which has the same effect)then we can talk about repealing the act of settlement and we’ll all be on equal footing as it were….

    The RC Church got rid of Ne Temere in 1970 so it’s back to Protestant brothers and Catholic sisters in them mixed Irish marriages. Hurry up with that repealing business.

  • Gréagóir O’ Frainclín

    Two very good books for all to read (especially Unionists) are….

    ‘Blood of the Isles’ by Bryan Sykes

    ‘The Atlantean Irish’ by Bob Quinn

  • agh

    so how is it that NI is never mentioned in these surveys?
    ++ hmm, 1 survey. u’d better go to wilkepedia and find another…

    Is it because NI is not actually part of GB?
    ++ u must have got an A in geography-correct. But NI is an integral part of the UK – just ask SF – they signed up 🙂

    So the people living in NI are not actually British.
    ++ approx 50% are and 50% arn’t. I’m easy with that – are you? When it comes to what actually matters and where they pay their tax and claim their dole I imagine most go through the bristish system?

    They are northern irish, which is currently part of the UK.
    Isn’t that more accurate?
    ++ They and us then is it – a nation of equals my arse. I’d (them uns) consider myself, British, Northern Irish and then Irish. But thats just me, them uns and us ins may differ somewhat but who cares?

    Is this a sore point for some folks? lol
    A sore point is when people start mouthing off and try and dictate other people’s national identity. Who cares if I feel proud to be Irish, British or whatever? Get over it! lol

  • Dec

    so how is it that NI is never mentioned in these surveys?
    ++ hmm, 1 survey. u’d better go to wilkepedia and find another…

    Actually, I’ve already found another. You can read about it in post 7.

    Is it because NI is not actually part of GB?
    ++ u must have got an A in geography-correct. But NI is an integral part of the UK – just ask SF – they signed up 🙂

    Hard to argue that. Easier to argue that you appear not to be able to distinguish between citizenship and nationality 🙂

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘When it comes to what actually matters and where they pay their tax and claim their dole I imagine most go through the bristish system?’

    I had no idea people on the brew paid taxes towards their own benefits…..with what exactly?

    ‘But NI is an integral part of the UK’

    not according to the british…..you know those people over the sea, in Britain.

    ‘So the people living in NI are not actually British.
    ++ approx 50% are and 50% arn’t’

    Right can i claim to be spanish? the women are nice and I love chorizo.

    ‘A sore point is when people start mouthing off and try and dictate other people’s national identity’

    a sore point is when a minority in a country go against the wishes of the majority in a country, stamp their feet and demand their own little sectarian statelet be set up.

  • fair_deal

    Dec

    Indeed the question is important. Unlike the question, the flexibility of the Union means people are not forced to choose one and only one. They can choose to be one or more. Hence “no difficulty with multiple overlapping identities”

    Perci

    Poor attempt at trolling.

  • Democratic

    “The RC Church got rid of Ne Temere in 1970 so it’s back to Protestant brothers and Catholic sisters in them mixed Irish marriages. Hurry up with that repealing business.

    Posted by George on Mar 27, 2008 @ 03:23 PM”

    Not how I understand it George – the original covenant made before God by both marriage parties to bring any children up as Catholic has been very slightly downgraded to an promise to do
    everything in the power of any Catholic parties to influence the raising of children in the said Catholic faith – not really much of a repeal I’m sure you will agree….you do also know that the act of settlement was supposed to have been formed as a response to Ne Temere decree.

  • George

    Democratic,
    you do also know that the act of settlement was supposed to have been formed as a response to Ne Temere decree.

    I doubt that very much as Ne Temere dates from 1907 and the Act of Settlement from over 200 years earlier. You probably means some other decree.

    Not how I understand it George – the original covenant made before God by both marriage parties to bring any children up as Catholic has been very slightly downgraded to an promise to do

    I understand it differently and I also think you have missed the key point for the non-Catholic in this.

    Now only the Catholic partner has to promise to where possible raise the children as Catholic.

    Previously, the non-Catholic partner was virtually always obliged to convert to Catholicism and the couple were obliged to raise the children as RCs.

    More than a slight downgrade if you want to shack up with a RC, in my view.

    Anyway, what on earth is a modern democracy doing having anachronistic laws on its books merely because it wants to put one over on the Catholics and their decrees. It’s 2008.

    But if you feel the two are linked, why is the Act of Settlement not “slightly downgraded” to a promise by the Protestant monarch to do his/her best to raise the childer as Protestants.

  • agh

    DEC:so how is it that NI is never mentioned in these surveys?
    ++ hmm, 1 survey. u’d better go to wilkepedia and find another…

    Actually, I’ve already found another. You can read about it in post 7.

    lol, was only extracting the you know what, but fair play you! Questions is if the mainland doesn’t care much about us – does the south give 2 hoots either?

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Questions is if the mainland doesn’t care much about us -‘

    agh you must be from Rathlin island.

  • AntiChrist

    So agh feels irish.

    Down the line a bit but there you go, you feel what you feel.

    This rules agh out of the suspect list for the ‘Kill All Irish’ graffiti.

    You learn something every day.

  • agh

    from ur name and remark I assume ur a troll from under a stone? darn, why do i always get sucked in……….. lol

  • Democratic

    “But if you feel the two are linked, why is the Act of Settlement not “slightly downgraded” to a promise by the Protestant monarch to do his/her best to raise the childer as Protestants.”

    Yes – a fair point George – I agree with this – like for like is absolutely fine by me.
    I will also check up on my error on the Act of Settlement date and find out exactly what I should have said here….speak soon.

  • RepublicanStones

    I can’t be certain but was Ne Temere actually legally written into the constitution in the south, and thus legally enforceable. Because the Act of Settlement is actually LAW in britain.

  • George

    RepublicanStones,
    I can’t be certain but was Ne Temere actually legally written into the constitution in the south, and thus legally enforceable. Because the Act of Settlement is actually LAW in britain.

    No, it wasn’t.

    Under common law, ante-nuptial agreements or undertakings are not legally enforceable but the Irish Supreme Court has held that Article 42.1, which guarantees to respect the inalienable right of parents to provide for the religious and moral education of their children, means that pre-nuptial arrangements are covered by this article, as long as both parents agree.

    In other words, unlike the UK a promise before marriage by both parents to raise future children in a certain religious tradition has been held to be legally enforceable in Ireland.

  • RepublicanStones

    Cheers George, so Ne Temere is not part of the Irish constitution, one religion is not given preference over another, merely the right of the parents to choose which faith….

    ‘The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.’

  • Dec

    Indeed the question is important. Unlike the question, the flexibility of the Union means people are not forced to choose one and only one. They can choose to be one or more. Hence “no difficulty with multiple overlapping identities”

    Well, the evidence from the Social Attitudes (which is an annual poll and unlike the MORI poll wasn’t commissioned by a certain political party) does clearly show more people, particularly in Scotland, are choosing one(identity). And it isn’t British.

  • Democratic

    “In other words, unlike the UK a promise before marriage by both parents to raise future children in a certain religious tradition has been held to be legally enforceable in Ireland”
    Yes George – this is exactly where Ne Temere shows its value does it not – even if it is now a simple promise by Catholic parties to do “whatever they can” (!!!) to ensure the upbringing of all children as Catholics – the Ne Temere mindset has directly led to the very enforcements of law you allude to in a couple of high profile historical cases in the South.
    P.S – Had a quick look at Ne Temere last night again – it appears that this is simply an expansion or update of an older Catholic decree – Tamseti was it?
    However my original point that the Act of Settlement should be scrapped along with Ne Temere still stands – would you agree yourself?

  • Kloot

    However my original point that the Act of Settlement should be scrapped along with Ne Temere still stands – would you agree yourself?

    How are the too connected. Which political post, in either the UK or Ireland is tied to “Ne Temere”

    Anyone in the ROI can achieve any political position regardless of their religion. This is not the case in the UK where the position of head of state is directly tied to a particular religion.

  • Democratic

    Hi Kloot – there are some folks that argue for the retention of the Act using Ne Temere for justification on the issue of sucession (amongst other things such as the issue of loyalty and deference to an exterior power outside the UK – ie the Pope)- although the decree has been “relaxed” the effect and ramifications for a Catholic monarch (Spain/Belgium for example)would have a similar effect. I ask you the same question – would you scrap both while scrapping one in theory – even if it is just for both being outdated concepts with no place in todays society (ROI or Britain)
    Your second point about reaching any political position in Ireland regardless of religion is accepted without argument.

  • DK

    R.Stones: “I had no idea people on the brew paid taxes towards their own benefits…..with what exactly?”

    Every time they buy something that has VAT on it, or pay car tax, or pay duty on alcohol, or buy petrol, etc. etc.

  • Kloot

    would you scrap both while scrapping one in theory – even if it is just for both being outdated concepts with no place in todays society (ROI or Britain)

    To be honest Democratic, I think both are dated and should be scrapped. The problem for me is in tying the scrapping of the two together.From what ive read of “Ne Temere”, its the church trying to impose a rule on its followers. Its followers, as they can with any of the churches teachings, can and do choose to ignore it. The act of settlement has no such flexibility.

    Both are outdated concepts.

  • George

    Democratic,
    Yes George – this is exactly where Ne Temere shows its value does it not – even if it is now a simple promise by Catholic parties to do “whatever they can” (!!!) to ensure the upbringing of all children as Catholics – the Ne Temere mindset has directly led to the very enforcements of law you allude to in a couple of high profile historical cases in the South.

    I can only speculate as to mindsets as all this stuff happened long before I was born but the historical cases of which you speak seem to me to be much more an issue of the constitutionally protected parental rights under Article 42.1 than they are about Ne Temere.

    To my knowledge, there have only ever been two historical cases directly involving this issue, the most recent one coming way back in 1959. One involved the schooling of children in a Protestant/Catholic marriage (Re Tilson) and the other involved a Catholic father of five who converted to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and wanted to convert his kids against the wishes of his wife (Re May).

    It was held in both cases that the initial pre-marital agreement stood.

    This only relates to marital agreements between two parents. For example, in the same period (1955) a Catholic father’s stipulation in his will that his daughter who converted to COI would only get her bequeath if she raised her children (his grandchildren) as Catholics, was held to be void as it fettered the daughter’s parental rights.

    I think the reading of Article 42.1 at that time is best summed up in Tilson (and upheld in May):

    “The true principle under our Constitution is this. The parents – the father and the mother – have a joint power and duty in respect of the religious education of their children. If they together make a decision and put it into practice it is not in the power of the father – nor is it in the power of the mother – to revoke such decisions against the will of the other party.”

    But even if we accept the mindset argument for 1950s Ireland, none of this has anything to do with the current situation as the repeal of Ne Temere in 1970 means that you no longer have situations where the permission of both parents is sought regarding the upbringing of children which is probably one of the reasons we haven’t had another case in the intervening 50 years.

    However my original point that the Act of Settlement should be scrapped along with Ne Temere still stands – would you agree yourself?

    As I already pointed out, Ne Temere was scrapped by the Catholic Church as far back as 1970. As for the Act of Settlement, I don’t believe it has a place in a modern democracy. You know you are off the pace if the Catholic Church is ahead of you on modern thought.

  • Robert Bingham

    Where I live the blood of Ulstermen remains pure, we have rejected the grasp of Satan and have no intention of allowing him to clench his black claws into our pure hearts. For let it be clear to you who try to poison the children of ulster’s minds with your debasive notions of our proud heritage. The monarch has never let Ulster down, and for this reason I am confident in my determination of who I am; a nephew of Britain, a cousin of Scotland, the son of an ulster-scot, a God fearing Ulster man, and a subject of her most honourable Queen Elizabeth II of England.

    May the good Lord God protect my proud heritage, my protestant brothers and sisters, and of course, her most congenial Queen Elizabeth II!

  • Democratic

    Hi George – I hope Mr. Bingham isn’t lampooning me on this one for my views aren’t that far removed from your own in effect – I’m not some super-Prod-Ulsterman caricature – anyway you seem to be very knowledgeable about legal matters (more so than me)but promises or assurances given via Ne Temere or attributed to it could easily lead directly to the type of legal proceeding that you so describe under ROI law no? Notwithstanding the downgrade of the decree (for it has not been scrapped as you say merely altered – and only slightly in effect in my opinion) do you not think it should be completely scrapped along with the Act of Settlement?

  • Gréagóir O’ Frainclín

    LOL Robert Bingham…you’re having a laugh!

    “…..and a subject of her most honourable Queen Elizabeth II of England.”

    Tell me this, the Protestant guilt of beheading one British monarch and unloyaly siding with a foreigner over a British monarch in 1690 must be insurmountable on their conscious today. For deep in their psyche must be a cause of shame and guilt.
    No wonder we get the neverending and over exagerated outpourings of unflinching loyalty to the ‘British’ crown by Unionists today. For it really hides their act of betrayal.

  • George

    Democratic,
    I don’t see why the Catholic Church should scrap a requirement on its followers that they promise to follow its religious code as best as possible. That’s fair enough to me.

    My problem with Ne Temere would have been the requirements placed on the non-Catholic partner (convert and raise children as Catholic).

    Now that the pressure on the non-Catholic partner is gone and they no longer have to promise anything to the Catholic Church, I couldn’t give a hoot about whatever the policy is post Ne Temere.

    As for Irish law, some might say what’s wrong with making parents hold to promises they both agreed on? You might be grateful of this legal protection if your other half woke up one day feeling all Benedictine.

    On the Act of Settlement, it relates to a head of state not a religion. I don’t think a modern democracy should be judged by the same standards.

    The State has to represent all its citizens, the Catholic Church only represents Catholics.

  • Democratic

    Hi George – doesn’t look like we are going to see eye to eye on this after all – Firstly the idea of making the Catholic partner promise to bring the children up as Catholic but not the other partner is really not much of a concession in realistic terms is it – I for one cannot see it solving any potential problems whatsoever within mixed marriages – this guideline would obviously apply to a theoretical UK Catholic (practising)monarch also though would it not? You can see the outworking of this surely. Also secondly the head of State (King/Queen)IS the head of the Church of England by default – they are not separate posts -as perhaps they should be.

  • George

    Democratic,
    it’s a huge concession for the non-Catholic in realistic terms.

    During Ne Temere, the position for the non-Catholic was convert to Catholicism and raise your children as Catholic.

    Post Ne Temere, as in where we have been for the last 38 years, the position for the non-Catholic is stay as you are religionwise and raise your children as you and your partner want.

    If you don’t see the difference between the two for the non-Catholic partner then we definitely won’t agree.

    The COI was disestablished in Ireland 140 years ago, maybe it’s time the UK followed suit.

  • Democratic

    “Post Ne Temere, as in where we have been for the last 38 years, the position for the non-Catholic is stay as you are religionwise and raise your children as you and your partner want.”
    Except thats not really true George – the Catholic partner is expected to and indeed made to “promise” to do “everything in their power” to bring the children up as Catholic – This is obviously somewhat different to raising the children in a manner decided purely by the parents – in terms of a Catholic King or Queen who take their religion seriously…well the effect on sucession is clear – so again I ask you should both acts/decrees not be scrapped?(Properly and not some halfway house business)
    And yes I do agree that Head of State should be separate from Head of Church – I was not excusing – just pointing out where your point was falling down.

  • George

    Democratic,
    Except thats not really true George –

    You have provided no evidence to back up that comment, merely stated it as fact. So if you wish to counter what I have said, I would be grateful if you could provide some evidence to back up your thesis that things are as you say they are.

    Before you do so, I should point out that the Economic and Social Review in a 1996 survey found that in 1973 around 50% of all mixed marriages in Ireland involved a conversion while this had fallen to just 14% by 1995.

    So, the research evidence seems to be backing me up.

    I might as well share this with you too as it’s interesting. It relates to the rate of intermarriage in the Republic:

    By the 1980s the same survey estimated that 40% of the Irish Republic’s Protestant population were in mixed marriages and this rate is likely to be much higher today.

    By 1995, 18% of mixed marriages took place in registry offices, 25% in Protestant churches and 57% in Catholic ones.

    Percentage of native born Protestants who are religiously intermarried as a percentage of all married Protestants. The rate is given for
    Protestants by the birth cohort of the female partner as recorded in the 1991 Census.

    Number of of Female of Marriage among Native Born Intermarriages Partner Protestants
    pre 1926 — 6.1%
    1927-31 – 7.5%
    1932-36 – 7.8%
    1937-41 – 10.3%
    1942-46 – 12.9%
    1947-51 – 19.1%
    1952-56 – 26.7%
    1957-61 – 32.5%
    1962-66 – 33.5%

    http://www.esr.ie/vol30_2/1_O'Leary.pdf

  • Moochin Photoman

    Robert Bingham –
    “I am confident in my determination of who I am; a nephew of Britain, a cousin of Scotland, the son of an ulster-scot, a God fearing Ulster man, and a subject of her most honourable Queen Elizabeth II of England.

    May the good Lord God protect my proud heritage, my protestant brothers and sisters, and of course, her most congenial Queen Elizabeth II!”

    So no mention of your neighbours and fellow country men?
    I’m also curious how the “Good lord” determines who is or isn’t to fall under its protection.

  • George

    Democratic,
    another statistic that could be relevant:

    According to the 2006 Census, 10% of Church of Ireland Protestants were “born” Catholic, the highest number in 70 years. I don’t know of any research done to ascertain the percentage of this number that converted on marriage but it I believe it is safe to say it indicates that the Ireland of today is a far cry from the pre-170 one where Ne Temere was still a factor.

  • Democratic

    Sorry George you are arguing against a point I never made by the look of it with various percentages to back it up – nor did you answer my question I note! However what did I write in my last post that I need to provide evidence to back up? – we are largely in the realms of theory here – was there something in particular – the bit about Catholic partners being made to promise etc? – I can do that if you like? The bit about mixed marriages being free to do as they please without pressure from the church? My contention in theory again of how Ne Temere could affect a Catholic monarchy – for this is where my argument stems and its main focus – and comparison with the act of settlement. I am not trying to rag you with this nor hopefully bore others with off-topic ramblings.

  • George

    Democratic,
    I’m not sure what question I haven’t answered. I thought you were of the view that Ne Temere was still a factor in mixed marriages while I was arguing the contrary.

    But if you are actually talking about a Catholic monarchy, it would agree that for them the new promise equates to pretty much the same thing if you were also the head of the Catholic Church at the same time. But it’s a little different for the man/woman on the ground.

    On to the Act of Settlement. I don’t have an issue with a Protestant monarchy but I do with the monarch also being head of state.

    Either the monarch is no longer head of the COE (and accordingly able to raise Catholic/Aethiest/whatever children if the situation arises) or the Protestant monarch stops being head of state.

    The head of state should reflect all the people he/she represents, not just one section for perpetuity.

  • Democratic

    Either the monarch is no longer head of the COE (and accordingly able to raise Catholic/Aethiest/whatever children if the situation arises) or the Protestant monarch stops being head of state.

    The head of state should reflect all the people he/she represents, not just one section for perpetuity.

    Yes – I agree with this much George – no issues for me there.

  • equitable strife

    When can we expect the first Anglican head of state at the Vatican City?

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Every time they buy something that has VAT on it, or pay car tax, or pay duty on alcohol, or buy petrol, etc. etc.’

    I was referring to tax not VAT, now im not too sure of many people on the brew being able to afford their own motor, maybe in your area. No doubt they pay extra on cigs and alcohol, but as they are usually imports, therefore a tariff, its not the same as paying a non-hidden tax like you do with your salary or your car. which is what I meant, as you well know, churlishness is so unbecoming.