Monday, 29 June 2009

Money Well Spent

69p.

To stop a politician (whether or not a party politician) from becoming Head of State.

To give a direct constitutional role to God Who is active in His world.

To embody sheer good fortune, which imposes responsibilities on the more fortunate towards the less fortunate.

To bind together the United Kingdom.

To define our nationhood in neither ethnic nor ideological terms.

And to bind us to the other 15 Commonwealth Realms (each of which, including Britain, remains so entirely by choice), to the 10 British Overseas Territories with permanent populations (which remain British entirely by choice), to the three Crown Dependencies (which remain so entirely by choice), to the three inhabited territories (voluntarily) dependent on Australia, to the one inhabited territory (voluntarily) dependent on New Zealand, and to the two states in free association with New Zealand, as well as the Melanesian half of the people of Fiji (the other half being descended from Indian indentured labour), whose Great Council of Chiefs (which elects the President) continues to acknowledge the Queen as Paramount Chief even though Fiji became a republic following two coups in 1987 (and has not exactly had a happy history since).

Money very well spent indeed.
Posted by at

9 comments:

  1. bobsur29 June 2009 at 17:01

    "To give a direct constitutional role to God Who is active in His world."

    I didn't vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay29 June 2009 at 17:05

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tint29 June 2009 at 17:06

    "To embody sheer good fortune, which imposes responsibilities on the more fortunate towards the less fortunate."

    Yes - getting paid £41.5m of public money during a global recession does indeed embody sheer good fortune.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay29 June 2009 at 17:10

    Which imposes responsibilities on the more fortunate towards the less fortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pref29 June 2009 at 17:11

    One of which responsibilities might be: spending less public money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Lindsay29 June 2009 at 17:11

    It depends where it's going.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ingly29 June 2009 at 17:16

    Yes, it does. The same is true of almost any use of public money. I'm not sure that "They'd only waste it if they didn't give it to us" is the best defence of a multi-million pound annual payment to an already fabulously wealthy woman.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Lindsay29 June 2009 at 17:18

    If you mean the Civil List, then that's a fraction of her own money back, out of which she performs public duties. And it hasn't gone up in something like 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous29 June 2009 at 18:30

    So basically, you're paying Queen Elizabeth millions of dollars NOT to run the country, because of God.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)