Your Feelings On Scotland.

[ilikekicks]

I saw this article..

 

http://news.yahoo.com/supporters-scottish-independence-narrow-poll-lead-first-time-005404318.html

 

I thought the UK's biggest problem was Ireland and the IRA. Any thoughts on Scotland leaving?

 

[Heelster]

With all the bull about ISIS, Syria, and the Hamas Westbank crap, Scotland is a minor thing. Other than you, I've heard nothing about this.

 

For some reason, I doubt it will happen.

 

Isn't Amanda from Scotland??

[Shyheels]

Not quite such a minor thing over here...

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed. It's occupying about 60% of all the news coverage. ISIS has been relegated to an "..and in other news.." item.

 

Personally I couldn't care less. If they vote no then they'll have to shut up about how hard done by they are for ever and if they vote yes then they will soon find out where they were better off and I wouldn't be surprised if they want to come back within ten years.

[Shyheels]

I think that is a pretty accurate analysis

[Heelster]

One thing that probably has been discussed in the UK would be the need that are currently covered by the empire such as military, government functions etc. Now Scotland has to consider who to temporarily contract with to supply these services.

 

Personally, I'd support the effort, but you know they will need some help if they do proceed with this.

[meganiwish]

ILK, if you miss a class you really must take the notes off someone who was there   or you'll fall behind.  The unpleasantness with the IRA was largely settled (almost) amicably in 1998.  The thing in Scotland is really small potatoes (albeit deep fried ones).

 

As for Scotland, it's mostly a case of a small fish in a small pond who wants to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.  This is one for the politicians.  As the situation stands at the moment, I suppose one could draw a parallel with the state/federal dichotomy in the US, though not exactly, of course.  I don't know exactly what powers the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies have, but all three countries still send members to Westminster.  If anything, it's the English regions that are under-represented, having no assemblies themselves.  Assemblies for Northern and Southern England, outside of London, would be no bad thing.

 

Heelster, there hasn't been an Empire since 1997 (handover of Hong Kong to China).  Even then, Scotland was part of the imperial power, Britain.  Under the Act of Union, 1707, Scotland was an equal partner with England, unlike Wales, which was a conquered nation in the Middle Ages.  After independence, if it happens, Scotland will still have the same monarch, like the rest of the Commonwealth, who all see that having a non-political Head of State has its advantages.  Even the Republic of Ireland  has a non-political President, whose role is very similar to that of the British constitutional monarch.

 

You're quite right, though, about Amanda living in Scotland.  I found this CCTV footage of her (without make-up, so you can see from her avatar that she scrubs up well) trying to secure some business funding.

 

Mike Scott, a fine Scotsman, had this to say, interestingly using 'England' to mean 'Britain'.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv_6B77pfCQ  If it happens I'll be intrigued to see if the Scots make their world less shabby.  I don't have such faith in politicians.

[ilikekicks]

ILK, if you miss a class you really must take the notes off someone who was there   or you'll fall behind.  

 

Thus why I asked. As you stated, I looked at it in comparison to the State/Fed conflicts happening in the U.S. . A union of a nation only goes so far.

 

Im not going to claim to know all the details or whats true or not in the whole deal with the Scots. Being honest, its not my nation so I'll stay out of their business. 

 

I am curious and was just looking for perspectives on whats going on. I'd rather read about things in the U.K. then in the Sandbox.

[meganiwish]

No offence intended.  No reason why you should know.  Indeed, you're more on the ball than many who live here, and more credit to you that you want to know.

 

It's just my way to be facetious, please don't take it amiss.  But I only do it with people I count as friends.  I'm sure I haven't misjudged you.

[ilikekicks]

All is well Megan. I just put my concerns at a ' local ' level right now and havent really looked at ' global ' perspectives as ( being honest ) ' not my concern ' presently.

 

I do ( once in a very seldom time ) take a look at other nations and ask perspectives. As noted, it seems outside of those in the U.K. , its not really known that theres some Scots that wish to break away.

 

I spoke with some Canadians that didnt even know that Quebec wanted to split from Canada not to long ago.

[Heelster]

All is well Megan. I just put my concerns at a ' local ' level right now and havent really looked at ' global ' perspectives as ( being honest ) ' not my concern ' presently.

 

I do ( once in a very seldom time ) take a look at other nations and ask perspectives. As noted, it seems outside of those in the U.K. , its not really known that theres some Scots that wish to break away.

 

I spoke with some Canadians that didnt even know that Quebec wanted to split from Canada not to long ago.

 

Yep - I'm kinda surprised the French canucks didn't succeed in this.

 

Years ago, I was out in the Calgary,Edmonton Lethbridge areas of Alberta. Kinda found it strange that these folks in the western territories actually called themselve the obscure 51,52,53rd states. They really don't care much for Ottawa.

 

Megan - Interesting Youtube.

 

Didn't see the CCTV of Amanda

[meganiwish]

No, you're quite right.  I must have failed to click a button.  Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7VoFiagfs  As you see, Amanda was wearing a natty trouser suit, and I'm impressed that she kept her dignity to the end, under gross provocation from the bank manager, who appeared to have just left school.

[Bubba136]

Listening to a discussion of this issue on our National Public Radio (NPR) yesterday, Iwas surprised at the number of participants from Scotland were going to vote for devolution regardless of how much difficulty establishing a new, separate nation would be. It appears to me that those wanting to break away from England haven't really identified the issues that would need resolving before an independent Scotland could assume their place in the community of sovereign nations. The moderator and all participants more or less agreed that the vote would be decided on pure emotion rather than a logical analysis of difficult problems that separation would cause.

[Heelster]

No, you're quite right.  I must have failed to click a button.  Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7VoFiagfs  As you see, Amanda was wearing a natty trouser suit, and I'm impressed that she kept her dignity to the end, under gross provocation from the bank manager, who appeared to have just left school.

 

Gotta love British humor - Yours included

[Aly]

When I take the time to think about this issue I'm left wondering: The "Yes" side wants complete independence yet they want to keep Queen Elizabeth as  monarch. If they truly want independence, why don't they want to restore the crown to the Stuart line?

[meganiwish]

Ah, The Young Pretender.  Well, his supporters were finally beaten in battle. Quoting Billy Connolly about Flower of Scotland,  'They went home to think again and came back in 1746 and kicked the shit out of us.'  Apologies to all you Jacobites out there, but ha! you lost.

[Bikergoth]

As an ex-member of the armed forces, I'm wondering if the vote is yes to independence, what will happen to all the Scottish regiments? Will they transfer over as a 'Scottish Army' or will they continue to serve the UK?  Will they keep their weapons, tanks, APC's etc. & be accepted into NATO... Or not?

[meganiwish]

Obviously they'll call in Colonel Alistair McCloud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcE86JmIN3E

[Bikergoth]

In an effort to reduce unemployment in the building industry perhaps Westminster may consider rebuilding Hadrian's Wall...?

[Shyheels]

We'd lose a bit of turf that way

[HappyinHeels]

It's all about self-determination and evolving as a people. My father's family is from Québec so I have watched this federalist/independent battle for some time. I am a big believer in self-determination so let the Scots settle it. I personally loathe monarchies so I would hope, if Scotland chose to become independent, it would also leave the monarchy. They are useless relics of a plunderous past. The countries of the Americas all suffered at the hands of European monarchies none more so than Peru and Mexico. I don't know the biggest factor of Scottish dissatisfaction but I understand it and know they'll figure it out.  HappyinHeels

[Shyheels]

Of course Peru and Mexico also had monarchies of their own long before the emissaries of the European ones arrived. Monarchies in and of themselves are not necessarily bad things. It is the calibre of person on the throne. Just as it is the calibre of person voted into office.

[meganiwish]

The Mexican monarch was known as the tlatoani, which translates from the Nauhatl as 'First Speaker'.  He was chosen by a council of six, from a ruling family, but not strictly hereditary, like many European monarchies.  Actually, the Saxons did a similar thing, choosing as King the one most accomplished, whereas the way on the Continent and after the Norman Conquest in England was for the eldest son to inherit.  The Inca in Peru presided over a society that modern people would recognise as socialist.

 

I'm no apologist for Empire, and indeed the Spanish treated their colonies as badly as imperial powers ever do.  There is evidence, though, to suggest that, had Cortes been granted the Viceroyship, he would have done a good job.  It's as Shyheels says, the calibre of the person matters.  I'm also no royalist, but just because someone got elected doesn't mean they're any good.  Tricky Dicky.  Our Queen has no axe to grind, and although her role is largely ceremonial, she does stand as a potential barrier to truly horrible laws.  Any law has to have Royal Assent.  We're very unlikely to get laws against, for example, mixed marriages, because they're unlikely to get Royal Assent.  The monarch has never withheld assent, but it's important that they could.

 

Worth repeating here that Scotland isn't a subject nation but an equal partner in a union.  In fact, in 1603 James VI of Scotland became James I of England too.  I'm going to leave it there and let the Jacobites bite my head off.

[Dr. Shoe]

Actually, Queen Elizabeth is a direct descendant of the Jacobite Kings anyway. The male side of the Stuart line ended with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 when James II was deposed. However, William Of Orange's wife was Mary of Modena, James's daughter. William and Mary who ruled jointly (Mary also qualified as queen in her own right) had no heir so William was succeeded by his sister-in-law Queen Anne who in turn also died without heir despite bearing 19 children most of whom she miscarried and some of which died at various stages of infancy. The longest lived died aged 11.

 

Anne was succeeded by George I, whose claim to the throne came via his mother's lineage who in turn was a Stuart.

I was reading a funny report the other day.

 

The remnants of the UK government would have no obligations towards a newly independent Scotland, nor would the EU nor NATO. Scotland would have no rights to continue to use Sterling as the official currency so Scotland might have to create it's own. Moreover, as a "Foreign" country, there would have to be border control, especially as Scotland would not automatically be part of the EU. Scottish people wishing to visit the UK would have to have a Scottish Passport, this includes people who live in Scotland but work in England. As there are no plans to set up a Scottish passport office, this could pose a longer term problem. English people going the other way would have no such problem as long as they have an up-to-date passport. Moreover, Scots living in England would technically now become illegal immigrants and could be deported for absolutely no reason. Since Scotland is not considered a politically unstable country (yet) nor are minority groups in fear of their lives, these people cannot claim asylum and will have fewer rights than someone coming from Syria say.

 

Scotland would have to apply to join the EU and may not actually qualify though they should be able to. They would have to be voted in and should places like Greece, Portugal and Bulgaria gang up on them then this may not be a foregone conclusion. Moreover, Scotland would not automatically be allowed to join NATO though there is no real reason why they shouldn't or couldn't as their armed forces would be drawn exclusively from units transferred from the UK control which means they have compatible systems etc.

[Shyheels]

Quite a few EU governments would be opposed to having Scotland join as that would appear to be giving encouragement to their own independence-seeking regions.

Could be quite a big mess, really.

[meganiwish]

Dr Shoe, you're quite right about Elizabeth having Stuart lineage, but the point of the Jacobites was that they contested the legitimacy of the Hanoverian line, largely on the basis that it came about from Parliamentary interference.  Still, ancient history.

 

It's a strange assumption that Scotland would need to be part of NATO, or even to have armed forces.  As for currency, Scotland would of course have the Poond, which, like the Irish Punt before it ,would be largely on a par with Sterling.  The citizenship issue is interesting.  I don't have United Kingdom citizenship, I have British citizenship.  The question is whether withdrawing from Westminster means withdrawing from Britain.  My old passport says 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', but it also says 'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Requests and Requires in the name of her Majesty....', so it would seem that it is she, and not Westminster, who grants the passport.  Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom, Her Majesty's Passport Office, Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  Scots will still be Her Majesty's subjects and as such still have the right to enter her domains, whether Westminster likes it or no.

 

I can't believe I've just written 'Her Majesty' so much, but I'm still glad she's there to put the Pink One in his place https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=futurama+pink+aliens&biw=1348&bih=613&tbm=isch&imgil=kKBlp7zXwb6JbM%253A%253BKXrj1xNAOoDibM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Ftheinfosphere.org%25252Fimages%25252Fcache%25252F5%25252F5c%25252FFile%25252525253AScammer_Aliens%25252525252Epng.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=kKBlp7zXwb6JbM%253A%252CKXrj1xNAOoDibM%252C_&usg=___dji5FEFnBaH9LV-NnCFqbjte1I%3D&ved=0CC0Qyjc&ei=o4EXVIHnIoXhasSogMAN#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=kKBlp7zXwb6JbM%253A%3BKXrj1xNAOoDibM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ftheinfosphere.org%252Fimages%252F2%252F2b%252FScammer_Aliens.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ftheinfosphere.org%252Fimages%252Fcache%252F5%252F5c%252FFile%2525253AScammer_Aliens%2525252Epng.html%3B640%3B352

[Shyheels]

I am glad she's still there too. If she's still there a year from now - 10 September 2015 - she edges out her great-great-grandmother to become Britain's longest serving monarch.

Being a subject of Her Majesty doesn't necessarily allow you access to this place. I am Australian. We also have the queen as our head of state, but I am here under sufferance, in the form of a permanent resident's visa. Otherwise, as a visitor to these shores, you get a limited stay and no working privileges.

The Scots, as citizens of another Commonwealth country, would presumably have the same issues. I expect they would end up with more privileges to avoid the sort of mess Dr Shoe describes, but that would have to be thrashed out over time. It could be quite interesting...

[Dr. Shoe]

Dr Shoe, you're quite right about Elizabeth having Stuart lineage, but the point of the Jacobites was that they contested the legitimacy of the Hanoverian line, largely on the basis that it came about from Parliamentary interference.  Still, ancient history.

 

It's a strange assumption that Scotland would need to be part of NATO, or even to have armed forces.  As for currency, Scotland would of course have the Poond, which, like the Irish Punt before it ,would be largely on a par with Sterling.  The citizenship issue is interesting.  I don't have United Kingdom citizenship, I have British citizenship.  The question is whether withdrawing from Westminster means withdrawing from Britain.  My old passport says 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', but it also says 'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Requests and Requires in the name of her Majesty....', so it would seem that it is she, and not Westminster, who grants the passport.  Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom, Her Majesty's Passport Office, Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  Scots will still be Her Majesty's subjects and as such still have the right to enter her domains, whether Westminster likes it or no.

 

 

Scotland will be an independent country. What happens if say Norway decides to invade to grab all that oil the Scots keep banging on about? They'll need an Army, Navy and Airforce then. Will they rely on the country they wanted Independence from? I see the situation as being exactly like when Ireland became independent in 1922, Westminster handed over some Irish units to kind of start them off. Eire is not part of NATO but is part of the EU (since 1973). My guess is that Scots serving in the Armed Forces will be amalgamated into Scottish Units and transferred to the direct control of Holyrood.

 

It is the queen that forms (and dissolves) Parliament and can veto any laws that are put before her for royal assent. She invites the winning party of a General Election to form a government but can (in theory) ask the losing party to do it though this could lead to a constitutional and political crisis. In fact she could ask anyone to form a government but maintains the Status Quo. Whether Scotland retains the Queen or decides on a President after independence remains to be seen.

[meganiwish]

In truth it's Parliament that chooses who will be Prime Minister.  They then go to the Queen, who then invites them to form a government. The Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet (Government) The Government really only has to have the support of Parliament enough to be able to function.  The Prime Minister doesn't need to come from the majority party or even one with more members.  It would have been entirely constitutional for the one Green Party MP to have been Prime Minister.  Indeed, there's no constitutional need for there to be any parties.  I appreciate that's not the case in practice, but it's depressing that the electorate believes it elects the PM, when all anyone can do is have a small say in who will represent the constituency they live in.

 

I have to hold my hands up and admit that I'm shaky on constitutional issues in the Commonwealth.  I know that the Queen is head of state, but I don't know on what basis.  But she is Queen of Scotland by direct lineage, so Scots are directly her subjects.  In this the situation is the same as pre-1707.  The difference with Ireland was that Ireland was a conquered nation.

 

The tabloid press and the politicians and chattering classes are having a whale of a time imagining all manner of problems.  The reality is that once the hot air stops blowing and the dust settles a modus vivendi will be arrived at, in Europe as well as Britain.

[Dr. Shoe]

Yes but in theory the Queen can veto parliament's choice. This is unlikely to happen because it was a monarch exercising this right that lead to the civil war.