An old lady dies

I shall not be mourning the passing of the British queen. Why would I? I didn’t know her. We’d never met. We weren’t even Facebook ‘friends’. I had no connection with this person. With her demise, I suffer no personal sense of loss. She had no place in my life, therefore no space is left empty by her departure. Mourning is for family, friends and those who had some kind of meaningful relationship with the person who has died. I have a more meaningful relationship with the Amazon courier than I did with the old lady who just died.

There is no tragedy in her death. Tragedy is when a life is cut short. Real tragedy is the death of a child. Everyone is touched by the death of a child. We all lose when a life is prevented from realising its potential. The British queen was 96 years old. There is no tragedy in dying at such an age. I shall not mourn. I shall not grieve. I most certainly will not be participating in the obscenely competitive public displays of theatrical lamentation which will sully the coming days and weeks. I will be visiting no makeshift ‘shrines’. I shall be laying no flowers. I shall be pinning no messages to fences. I feel no sorrow. I shall not be false. I won’t be mourning the death of the British queen.

But neither shall I celebrate the death of this old lady. To rejoice in death ─ any death ─ is to diminish life. Life is to be celebrated. Death is to be accepted. Life is to be strived for. Death is to be resigned to. Our individual lives are what we do with the life that manifests in each of us. Life itself is common to all of us; to everything that lives. The phenomenon of life that finds expression in a tree or a woodlouse is precisely the same phenomenon that makes a person. There is only one life. Each of us contains life. Life contains all of us. I shall not celebrate a departure from life. I cannot rejoice in the departure of life.

I shall not mourn. I shall not grieve. I shall feel no sorrow. I shall feel some sympathy for those who have genuine cause for sorrow because the death of this person has created a hollowness in their own lives. They have cause to mourn. They have the right to grieve. I do not. I shall respect their grief. I do not share it. I cannot share it. I am not entitled to share it.

I abhor the monarchy. I glory in life. I shall not have the latter tainted by the former. I shall not celebrate. But neither shall I mourn. The British queen is dead. This does not concern me. This does not affect me.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s cause.


42 thoughts on “An old lady dies

  1. I’m very much interested in what happens next. Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of continuity and Britain’s connection with the past. She was perhaps the last thread holding the UK back as it plunges into turmoil. Consequently there is likely to be a significant psychological effect among the old and the most British. For example, what are the Unionists going to do now – one of their more significant foundations was just removed.


  2. I am strangely unmoved by her passing, not because I disliked her or wished her ill, but simply because her role in life was an anachronistic one, used to maintain a kind of serfdom within the U.K. and commonwealth.
    Her decision to allow herself to be used by the establishment, against all precedent and her neutrality, during the final weeks of the independence referendum in 2014 was a turning point for many Scots and evidence of the dishonesty of the British Govt.

    Sent from my iPhone

    Liked by 5 people

  3. The Queen is dead.

    I feel no need or compunction to justify this view nor caveat it with faux sentiment about her passing.

    I now look forward to living in the Independent Republic of Scotland.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I just wonder why, if you really have no thought or feeling about an old lady’s death, you make such an effort to put yourself out there to tell everyone that it is a pointless event,
    Why not say nothing at all?


    1. I didn’t say it was a “pointless event”. Self-evidently, it’s not true to say I had “no thought”. What you seem to be objecting to is the fact that I expressed my own thoughts on my own blog. If that sort of thing tangle’s your TENAs you’re going to be awfy busy sharing you own ‘thought’ on the matter.

      What effort? I wrote a wee article for my blog. It’s what I do.

      Liked by 5 people

    2. When campaigning starts in earnest again, Anne, the vast moderate majority is going to have to take over below the line on forums, newspapers and even start their own blogs for those with the energy.

      At the moment most of it is a complete turn off, as I’ve been told.


  5. This article is a classic example of one written by someone who lives in an ivory tower, an echo chamber, with no contact with the real outside world. Surrounded by fellow Monarchy despisers, or perhaps those who nod in agreement hoping the frothing village anti-monarchist will go away and leave them alone. In a similar way in Indy Ref 1, 20 year olds nodded their head in agreement and said “Oh Yes, oh yes”, when some fanatic Indy campaigner went on and on and on about Thatcher who was out of power before they were even born. Luckily most of them still voted YES.

    What does it contribute to anything, to trample on the feelings of those who DO care, those who were in tears, those who are sad, those who don’t care themselves but do respect the feelings of others at a time of great loss for some people, and since this is supposed to be a pro-Independence blog though it seems to have absolutely zero articles pushing the arguments for Independence any more, how on earth does the author think it advances the cause of Independence by so carelessly trampling all over the feelings of people who some of us are actually trying hard to open the minds of to Independence, and a YES vote, rather than writing a whole load of mince to say “I don’t care”?

    Bad enough to make such a crass unfeeling and inhuman comment below the line on The National, but the sheer stupidity of thinking it’s suitable for an article on a blog, shocks even me.

    “Oh Yes”.


    1. No wonder support for Independence isn’t well over 50% or even 60%, with the extremeness of much of the vocal and prolific Indy movement – all 200 of them – putting normal people off by pretending to speak for the majority on issues such as the monarchy, bombs, Tories, scum in the bath and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Independence itself, which means that the people WE elect make all the decisions for Scotland. While most people are just getting on with life.

      It’s not Sturgeon’s fault. it’s yours.


      1. “It’s not Sturgeon’s fault. it’s yours.”


        Wow! talk about being delusional, is Peter the FM? has Peter been the FM since Salmond departed? the answer of course as you know fine well is no.

        The reason we have moved backwards on the indy front is because Sturgeon isn’t interested in Scottish independence, she has a whole other agenda, infact one could easily say that she’s actively damaged the cause.

        Her attack dogs the LA’s have menaced and imprisoned prominent indy bloggers, and the Scottish government and the LA vehemently opposed, and did everything in their power to thwart Mr Keatings, let’s not forget the 600k missing God only knows where that is, and that’s just the tip of a very huge iceberg.

        You might not agree with everything Peter says, I certainly don’t, but to blame the man, a die-hard indy supporter for independence stalling is stupid and crass.

        Liked by 5 people

          1. You mean straight to the point, Sturgeon’s record on Scottish independence since she took office speaks volumes, not just to me but to many, many Scots.

            I don’t have any other guises, unless Sturgeon who is Janus faced.


    2. I’m at a bit of a loss here, with that post!
      Did Peter Bell say anything against the dead Monarch, personally?
      Did he say anything we could find offensive?
      He simply gives his own view of the death of the Queen of England, (for such She was), but he also makes it clear, that while it doesn’t affect him in any way, it does affect Her immediate family, and those who knew Her.
      And he understands their grief at this moment in time.
      So, I don’t see how anyone could read any “extreme” view point in there.
      He basically lets us know, he is rather indifferent to it all.
      Hardly an extreme view to hold!

      As for the Queen, well, I had nothing against Her, but I don’t think She actually did too much. Look at the crazed Johnson Government, and She allowed all that to take place.
      What is the point of Monarchy then, when it does nothing in face of such chaos?
      Also in allowing Herself to be known as Queen Elizabeth II. in Scotland, that was an absolute insult to this country! Any wonder some folks might show just a wee bit of indifference?
      At least Charles III. is actually as His Title says!
      I will certainly pray for The Queen, She was Head of State, regardless of what we think of it.
      I think it ill timing on the part of ALBA to be calling for the end of Monarchy in Scotland, before the poor person has even been buried!

      As for Margaret Thatcher, well, sure folks still rave against her, as the effects of her destructive policies still remain very much with us, today.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. At least you thought about what you were going to write Gordon.

        There’s many in the Indy movement who engage their fingers on keypad, keyboard or speech to text converters, without first engaging brain and asking themselves a simple question:

        “Is what I’m writing going to help Scotland become Independence by winning the hearts and minds of those who aren’t yet YES voters, or is it going to put them off?”

        Peter didn’t just blurt this on his blog, which is of course his own blog, he cut and pasted it from his comment below the line on the National, which, isn’t. It’s where in theory those wondering about whether they should vote YES might come to see what sort of person an Independence supporter is. Well, God help them, Peter’s comment didn;t just amke it past the moderators, it is less nasty than some, though completely pointless.

        It was actually better below the line on the National when outright unionists voted without paying subscriptions. At least they were genuine.


        1. Actually, it was the other way around. I copied it from my blog to The National. Not that it matters which way round it. The whole point of these things is to share them as widely as possible. Even if for no other reason than to annoy pompous self-appointed gatekeepers such as yourself who can’t even comprehend plain English but want to censor everybody else.

          You’ve really made a total arse of yourself with the latest witless tantrum. Like others, I was baffled when I read your wee rant as it doesn’t relate to the article at all. It’s as if you’re commenting on a version you’ve heard after it has been subject to a few rounds of Chinese whispers.

          I shall, of course, ignore your censorious diktats. But please keep them coming. I’m sure I’m not alone in finding your tantrums mildly amusing.

          Liked by 4 people

      2. As for Margaret Thatcher, well, sure folks still rave against her, as the effects of her destructive policies still remain very much with us, today.

        Just picking up on this Gordon now I’ve finished work for the night, I live on the Clyde, and though a lot of people concentrate on Ravenscraig and steel, or talk about John Brown, there was also Scott Lithgow which was sold off to Trafalgar House which Thatcher claimed would make Scott Lithgow the “flagship” of Trafalgar House.

        Instead of that it was systematically asset stripped, along with what was left of John Brown and others, and then sold off to Kvaernar who closed the lot down at the turn of the century.

        But it’s not much use as an argument for Independence; after that we had Compaq, Nat Semi, HP, IBM, Volvo, Hyster, ICI Ardeer and others I forget – just on this coast, not mentioning Bathgate, Timex, Ferranti, Singer, Satchwell Sunvic, Polaroid, Rolls Royce at Hillington – off the top of my head, there are more. Many more. Anyone remember Honeywell?

        But personal bugbears do not convice people to vote YES – if they relate to the grievance and sadness, and sense of futility about being able to do anything to stop it happening within the Union, they’re probably YES already.

        Some people forget the purpose of all this, but hopefully my posts will help some remember, though the blog host is a lost cause I fear.

        Meanwhile Scotland is just a branch office for many of the big companies that operate here. Including ones that actually started here.


        1. Holyrood and the Scottish Government is also still just a branch office of Westminster, which explains why Scotland is still a branch economy, i.e. under-developed and exploited, as are our people. People need to better understand where our oppression comes from – it comes via every colonial ‘branch’.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Please don’t tag your colonic irrigation onto my comments as though I might in any universe in a multidimension of multiverses, agree.



        2. I disagree with your point about Thatcher, etc, (including John Major) not being relevant.
          It plays a large part in it.
          And when we look at the sorry state of Inverclyde today, not helped by utterly useless LibDem, or Labour councillors, as it went from one hopeless pro Union side to the other, and I’d declare the Libs to be the worse of the two, it is one good reason why we should be Independent.
          And as you say, this scenario has been repeated all over Scotland.
          Dundee had an old, old shipyard, and it too, is gone now.

          It might have been years ago, but the damage done is still there, and folks remember it very well, as it is all around them, still today.
          The railroad building plants in Springburn all but gone.
          All those 10s of thousands of jobs lost forever.
          And after it, we had the spectacle of local Labour councillors, Councillor Martin in particular praising a huge new Tesco store, and telling us how this would help transform the prospects of jobseekers.
          Yeah, both he, and the awful Michael Kelly omitted to mention the fact that of the 500 jobs on the go, all but 50 were part time, and they would all have been Min Wage at most.

          And talking of former Lord Provost Michael Kelly, he was on the wireless a year or so before. I’m sure it was Austin Lafferty’s Radio Scotland show at weekends.
          He insisted Edinburgh has traffic jams because they didn’t build a motorway thru the city!
          Folks in Greenock don’t visit museums, and icing on the cake, when it was suggested Tesco was gonna build a big 24 Hour store at St.Rollox, he pompously declared, “Who wants to shop at night, except the unemployed, as they don’t have work to go to in the morning?”
          Within months of that comment, and all said in the one lot, Kelly was flogging the PR for that very Tesco store!
          I have total contempt for that wretched creep.
          Yeah. We don’t forget any of that.

          Liked by 2 people

  6. Well said Peter, though I have absolutely no time whatsoever for royalty or the ruritanian bollocks that goes with it.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Apparently the UK is a nation in mourning, or so we’ve been told 300000000 times on all radio stations today. The bit of my nation I’ve been out in today doesnt seem to be mourning (much to my relief, as I was a bit concerned in case I stood oot like a sore thumb due to insufficient mourning). I went to check on some friends in case they had been affected by the mourning outbreak, but no, after explaining why the entire household was being moved into the living room because they werent going to be able to afford to heat the whole hoose we soon reverted to our usual loud and sweary commentary on the so-called news, which I had better not repeat here as it would appear there are new no-go areas of reality-speak (jings, I hope my pals hoose wasnae bugged – hopefully the howls of laughter disguised the content…)

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I have to say, I do find the SNP Leadership comments rather over the top.
      I get the fact the death of the Head of State is a major event, but, but, to have the First Minister claim The Queen was “Queen of Scots”, is pure nonsense.
      She was nothing of the kind.
      She was Queen of England, first and foremost.
      Calling Herself “Elizabeth II” , was as I say above, truly insulting to Scotland.
      The First Minister should stick to the realities here, and not go way over the top like this!


  8. Aside from economic plunder, external political control, and cultural assimilation, colonialism is also a psychological condition, “a disease of the mind” according to Albert Memmi and Frantz Fanon. Why else would a people celebrate their oppressors?

    Liked by 4 people

    1. It’s quite incomprehensible. I just saw a Tweet in which somebody standing outside Buckingham Palace who’d brought their nan’s ashes – ‘cos she lurved the queen! These people have a serious defect.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. Just nicked out of my MSM No Fly Zone for supplies , read your blog , spot-on as per . Just heading back before sniper yir2 spots me and trains his water-pistol loaded with tears on me .
    Let me know when it’s safe to come out . I fear it may be quite a while

    Liked by 5 people

    1. It’s not the real thing!
      No one knows where the actual stone used by Scottish Kings, now is, but it ain’t this bit of rock at Edinburgh.
      They say it was hidden away some place, and this big rock was put there to deceive the English.
      Tho the deal was always that they’d take the rock to London for the next coronation, and then it goes back to Edinburgh.
      Regardless, I guess it does have a bit of history in that it was used all those centuries at such events, but it has precious little importance to me, and I doubt most folks who want Independence really care that much for it
      The only thing is can be said to represent, is English aggression against Scotland!
      In that sense, we could view it as a source of contention.


  10. Supporting a Republic is very much mainstream politics in a Monarchy, and if ever that was banned wew would indeed be living in a Fascist state.

    But at this time it is very much like The Naked Rambler appearing at a funeral protesting his right to be naked and shaking his wotsits in the mourners’ faces. “Me me me”, he cries.

    Luckily Sturgeon, who was a Republican as an ordinary member, has the intelligence that some, including a few columnists and bloggers, completely lack, and has expressed her sympathy on behalf of the vast majority of the People of Scotland who have more sense of decorum and empathy, including by far the majority of fellow Republicans.

    Now is not the time, and these me me me people are like the Naked Rambler Party insisting on their right to demonstrate in the nude at that funeral, and wave their bits about.

    I despair at their stupidity and lack of empathy, and that seems to include Tickell who sees things only through his own prism as a Republican. Most Republicans luckily, have more cop-on.

    NOW, are any of you able to understand that at all, or are you all “Me me me”?


    1. And just to clarify something for those who tappity tap tap on a keyboard before reading and understanding what they half-read, Bulmer and Tickell clearly agree “Now is not the time”, though for different reasons. Bulmer talks about the accession of Charles bringing in the time to consider the needs of Scotland, though Tickell’s is more motivated by self-pity because he didn’t have the cop-on to leave it a couple weeks and got told what he is apparently.

      There are times it’s best just to keep mouth shut, and fingers in the pocket.


    2. And by the way, for the avoidance of doubt, those on the BBC who are using the Queen’s death to push the case for the Union, are even more of a disgrace.


    3. The First Minister doesn’t sound particularly “republican” to me!
      She comes over as being pro Monarchy, certainly these days.
      Neither was Alex Salmond noted for being anti Monarchy.
      I think their view is that it would be up to an Independent Scotland to decide on Monarchy.
      And actually I get the impression, they’d be happy enough to keep with the present arrangement, maybe out of a certain fear of alienating pro Monarchy folks?
      There are however, a fair number of pro Monarchy folks who want Independence, but who at same time, demand their own Scottish Monarch living at Edinburgh, otherwise, they will oppose any Monarchy for Scotland, based in London.
      I am certainly against us have a Monarch based in London.

      With Independence, we have our own Head of State here in Scotland, be that Monarchy or otherwise.


      1. The debate about the monarchy has always been one of the more potent distractions from the main constitutional issue. I don’t know why. It’s not like we can do anything about it until after independence is restored.

        I see Nicola Sturgeon playing a role. Which she has to do. It comes with the job. But I get the impressions she is maybe getting a bit carried away with the whole ‘statesmanlike’ thing. It’s pretty much impossible for her to get it right, of course. Just a little too much detachment and she finds herself accused of disrespect.

        The matter is complicated by the fact that the two of them seemed to hit it off surprisingly well. Not friends, exactly. But there was some kind of relationship there.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.