QR
Well-known member
- Joined
- 21 May 2019
- Messages
- 6,943
You started it!I don't find your comments very convincing, and I would go as far as to say they aren't particularly generally persuasive.
You started it!I don't find your comments very convincing, and I would go as far as to say they aren't particularly generally persuasive.
So, you're saying that because we are trying to curtail international student numbers (I have no idea if that is true), that somehow justifies the abolition of the monarchy, as it would be less financially damaging?
And you're asking, if we were to just disregard the £2.5bn annual benefit provided by the monarchy (for god knows what reason), what's the benefit of keeping them?
I'd probably say:
1. They provide a sense of national identity for many people and communities.
2. They maintain an important social, constitutional and religious link to our national history.
3. They stand in place of what would be a divisive republican figurehead.
4. Public opinion polls suggest that people want them to remain, so they are fulfilling a role that people want.
5. They maintain and conserve a huge amount of wild and natural green space in the country.
6. They are internationally recognised and respected.
... But let's not just cast aside the billions of pounds of revenue they provide this country. It's a bit odd that you seem to be minimising that significant contribution, to be honest.
There are plenty of numbers that make £2.5bn appear "specious" in comparison, but that doesn't mean we should just disregard it entirely. That's like me saying £500 is very small compared to your entire life savings, so you might as well just throw away £500 because it's a "specious" sum.No, I'm saying the financial argument that is always put up whenever abolishing the monarchy is raised is specious in comparison (and in general).
1/4 - That is massively skewed by the over-65s - 78% support at whatever level. Look to the future, only 32% of 18-24 year olds support the monarchy (40% want an elected head of state). Apart from a bump around the Queen's death, the level of support has been consistently falling. Would suggest it is at least time for a debate.
6 - Any more than any head of state? William certainly felt different in his trip to the Caribbean.
Why doesn't the USA take a leaf out of our book and just arrest the smog and then the problem of global warming just goes away. Simples!
Don't be this guy.How does disturbance shape Canada's forests?
natural-resources.canada.ca
Canada has, on average, 2.5 million hectares of forest fires every year.
The weather has pushed the smoke south.
Ironically into the USA where the overpopulated, obese, gun toting yanks create more pollution than many others.
I bet you are excited by the new UK weather warning colour scale.![]()
We get Saharan dust storms in the UK.
Do you stay indoors?
Yellow weather warning for this weekend......... either "torrential thunder" or a "heatwave".
Its the weather, and nothing you or I do in the next few decades will make diddly difference, its all part of global evolution which may not include the human race.![]()
Having been in a dust storm in the Sahara; we emphatically don't get Saharan dust storms in the UK!
Aaaaargh no. Especially from someone in the health business. Silicates are not great, but soot is worse! Silicates can cause major lung disease - e.g. Australia has banned engineered stone (e.g. kitchen tops) because tradies are dying of pneumo-whotsit-coniosis. But soot is worse! All of the fullerene-type supermolecules in soot have horrible reduction-oxidation properties that make them very mutagenic. Breathing in visible smoke is like smoking - very bad. Anyone with lung issues (asthma, COPD, long covid) will struggle.We get Saharan dust storms in the UK.
Do you stay indoors?
Yellow weather warning for this weekend......... either "torrential thunder" or a "heatwave".
Its the weather, and nothing you or I do in the next few decades will make diddly difference, its all part of global evolution which may not include the human race.![]()