Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Iluvbertie said:
This decision though doesn't only affect Scotland but the entire union is going to be affected.

The sad thing is the way Scotland is being torn apart.

I have friends with family over there who are planning on leaving regardless of the vote due to the way their community is no longer a community. They have been vilified by former friends over their views and have been uninvited to two weddings in the past two weeks because of their opinions.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. It is not from today over tomorrow that Scotland will become independent. When the YES-camp wins the Referendum, then negotiations will start with "Westminster" and things will be handed over in a prudent manner with respect for the outcome of the democratic process.

When Ireland became an independent country possibly the same tensions were there as well, between nationalists and unionists but -with the exception of Ulster- the Irish woke up in a new country and went on with their daily life. The bus still stops around the corner, there is still electricity coming out of that contact in the wall and your children are still expected in school class. It is just a new reality and people will adjust to it.

Who would ever have thought that countries as Germany or France would give up the Deutsche Mark or the Franc Français? On 1 January 2002 all ATM's in the whole of the Eurozone started to distribute Euros instead of Guilders, Pesetas, Liras, etc. People simply started to use these currencies and today, the 10th of August 2014, still around 400 million people use this currency every day. They get their pensions in Euros, they calculate in Euros and buy houses and cars with Euros. Life simply goes on. There is no alternative anyway when reality is there.
 
:)Apology accepted Ish,
and i'm sorry too, that my point wasn't clearer !
 
[ The sad thing is the way Scotland is being torn apart.]

This is what sadly happens with civil war, which altho 'peacefully'..is exactly what is happening to our country.
I have friends in Scotland who are also planning to move south [regardless of the outcome], as they too have not liked the emnity and division revealed in their community, and believe that it will only harden at time goes on.
 
I would be a NO-voter (and I think the majority of the Scots too) when it means loosing the Queen. Since the monarchy is to stay, whatever the outcome, from a royalist point of view the 'danger' is out of the debate. Of course there are many more topics to discuss but as this is a Royal Forum, I try to look on that aspect only. Queen Elizabeth will continue with the present situation or she will face a new situation with another title added to her looooong list.
 
The campaign for Scottish independence suffered a double blow today after two major businesses warned against the dangers of separation.
Scottish financial giant Standard Life revealed it was putting in place plans to move parts of its business to England to protect itself against independence.
It came as Britain’s biggest fuel company BP warned against voting ‘Yes’ next week. It released a statement saying the prospects for North Sea oil were best served by the UK.
Standard Life chief David Nish said his firm was preparing to move big chunks of his company to England in the event of a 'Yes' to independence vote
The statements will be highlighted by the increasingly-concerned ‘No’ campaign amid a surge in support for independence.
Standard Life boss David Nish released a statement to investors highlighting the ‘constitutional uncertainly’ in the 18 months after independence.
He said the company would ‘take whatever action is required to protect our customers' interests’ by moving huge chunks of its business south of the border.
Click to expand...
Double blow for Salmond as Scottish finance giant Standard Life reveals plan to move to England as BP rubbishes SNP's North Sea oil claims and calls for 'No' vote | Mail Online
 
PrincessOfPeace said:
Double blow for Salmond as Scottish finance giant Standard Life reveals plan to move to England as BP rubbishes SNP's North Sea oil claims and calls for 'No' vote | Mail Online
Click to expand...

From what I read in the online comments in the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Guardian and the Independent (all four very much in the NO-camp) I sense that the more "Westminster" rams on the Scots, the more desperate cries the establishment and multinationals utter, it is almost as if the lights will go out and the trains will stand still, the more determined the YES-camp seems to become. Instead of painting a positive future for an Union together (which is difficult because the Scots have the Union NOW and are not happy), the NO-camp is more and more on the scaremongering route. I doubt if this is the wisest choice. I wish the Scots wisdom and good luck.

Du moment the Scottish Government lowers the corporate taxes, it remains to see what companies as Standard Life will do...

:whistling:
 
Du moment the Scottish Government lowers the corporate taxes, it remains to see what companies as Standard Life will do..
Click to expand...

Economic 'reducto sd absurdam' then... If [tragically] it comes to it. England could reduce the business environment in Scotland to ashes.. [which is one tenth of its size].

Just 2 million [of 5] adult Scots work, and the rest [the old, the young and the sick] need to be supported, and if business leaves for a lower taxed neighbour [ which England can afford to be], the consequences would be dire for employment in an 'independant' Scotland.

It is unpalatable, but the voters need to be made aware of that possibility, rather than just be fed 'hearts and flowers in Alec Salmonds Panglossian dream world.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
From what I read in the online comments in the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Guardian and the Independent (all four very much in the NO-camp) I sense that the more "Westminster" rams on the Scots, the more desperate cries the establishment and multinationals utter, it is almost as if the lights will go out and the trains will stand still, the more determined the YES-camp seems to become. Instead of painting a positive future for an Union together (which is difficult because the Scots have the Union NOW and are not happy), the NO-camp is more and more on the scaremongering route. I doubt if this is the wisest choice. I wish the Scots wisdom and good luck.

Du moment the Scottish Government lowers the corporate taxes, it remains to see what companies as Standard Life will do...

:whistling:
Click to expand...

Standard Life have told their shareholders that they have set up English compnaies so that in the case of a Yes vote, they will transfer the funds belonging to English customers to those companies. The Bank of England will guarantee those funds. The Bank of England has stated quite clearly and on more than one occasion that independence means that the BoE will not support a "foreign government" (to do otherwise would be incompatible). This also means that they will not guarantee Scottish funds. This is the reason people are already moving their money out.

I know you think this is all part of the general smoke and mirrors that surround these issues but actually informing shareholders in writing makes it v real to me.
 
This is all getting very exciting! I just wonder what way Scotland will vote on the 18th, I always assumed (since the referendum was confirmed) that the Scots would vote NO, but now I'm not so sure.


His Grace, The Duke
 
DukeJonathan81 said:
This is all getting very exciting! I just wonder what way Scotland will vote on the 18th, I always assumed (since the referendum was confirmed) that the Scots would vote NO, but now I'm not so sure.


His Grace, The Duke
Click to expand...

I think it will be No. Don't always believe Polls as they can be very misleading sometimes. Some this week like Panelbase and Survation shows the No vote ahead. It will probably be closr


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app
 
The English — who subsidise Scotland to the tune of £17.6 billion a year according to the most recent Treasury figures — are not allowed a say, as if the Union were about Scotland alone.
 
Last edited:
PrincessOfPeace said:
The English — who subsidise Scotland to the tune of £17.6 billion a year according to the most recent Treasury figures — are not allowed a say, as if the Union were about Scotland alone.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. According to this reasoning, a wealthy husband who has been financially supporting his wife throughout their marriage should have a say in whether or not the woman, who has had enough of what has become an unhappy marriage and wants a divorce and independence, is able to in fact get her freedom, on the basis that he has been spending lots of money on her and their children over the years and he doesn't want to lose the services she has been providing him/them?

Perhaps not a perfect analogy - and only relevant in no-fault divorce jurisdictions - because the husband will almost certainly have to keep paying at least some of her expenses, but nevertheless it is a similarly patronising approach.

Further, in the case of Scotland and England I would think England might be happy to have the opportunity to spend that £17.6 billion a year on those who remain within the union and not the ungrateful Scots who want the right to run their country themselves.
 
Roslyn said:
Hmmm. According to this reasoning, a wealthy husband who has been financially supporting his wife throughout their marriage should have a say in whether or not the woman, who has had enough of what has become an unhappy marriage and wants a divorce and independence, is able to in fact get her freedom, on the basis that he has been spending lots of money on her and their children over the years and he doesn't want to lose the services she has been providing him/them?

Perhaps not a perfect analogy - and only relevant in no-fault divorce jurisdictions - because the husband will almost certainly have to keep paying at least some of her expenses, but nevertheless it is a similarly patronising approach.

Further, in the case of Scotland and England I would think England might be happy to have the opportunity to spend that £17.6 billion a year on those who remain within the union and not the ungrateful Scots who want the right to run their country themselves.
Click to expand...

I know people here are quite upset at the prospect of a "yes" vote, but it would be interesting to watch what happens next.
 
What does it mean that the UK "subsidizes" Scotland to the tune of almost 18 Billion a year? Is that net or gross?

I only ask because here in the states that would be a difficult calculation for any State (not the same as the UK, I realize - but it is the closest model with which I am familiar). That's because there is Federal Money that flows to the states, but some, not all of it is for National programs (roads, Defense, natural resources, etc.) Also, people and businesses in states fund the Federal government through taxes. My national government could not help fund state and local programs if I did not pay my Federal Taxes. Even charity money flows in a very complex way: locally, regionally, nationally and that also finds its way into the overall national economy.

Anyway - that's a sincere question I am asking about the subsidy.
 
AdmirerUS said:
What does it mean that the UK "subsidizes" Scotland to the tune of almost 18 Billion a year? Is that net or gross?

I only ask because here in the states that would be a difficult calculation for any State (not the same as the UK, I realize - but it is the closest model with which I am familiar). That's because there is Federal Money that flows to the states, but some, not all of it is for National programs (roads, Defense, natural resources, etc.) Also, people and businesses in states fund the Federal government through taxes. My national government could not help fund state and local programs if I did not pay my Federal Taxes. Even charity money flows in a very complex way: locally, regionally, nationally and that also finds its way into the overall national economy.

Anyway - that's a sincere question I am asking about the subsidy.
Click to expand...

I've been told that here in the U.S. the wealthier states subsidize the poorer ones - I'm guessing but it must mean that money allocated for instance for highways is pooled and whoever needs it gets it - it does not go back to the state in the proportion to the taxes paid.
 
AdmirerUS said:
What does it mean that the UK "subsidizes" Scotland to the tune of almost 18 Billion a year? Is that net or gross?

I only ask because here in the states that would be a difficult calculation for any State (not the same as the UK, I realize - but it is the closest model with which I am familiar). That's because there is Federal Money that flows to the states, but some, not all of it is for National programs (roads, Defense, natural resources, etc.) Also, people and businesses in states fund the Federal government through taxes. My national government could not help fund state and local programs if I did not pay my Federal Taxes. Even charity money flows in a very complex way: locally, regionally, nationally and that also finds its way into the overall national economy.

Anyway - that's a sincere question I am asking about the subsidy.
Click to expand...

I'm about to make a risky post but I think it's a good estimate (but admit its not exact).

Per capita the payments to regions are c. as follows

N Ireland £8,800
Scotland £8,300
Wales £8, or £7,900
England £7,700

The numbers might be slightly out (because I cant find the source doco and doing from memory) but the order is correct. England receives less per capita from Whitehall than any other region. It is also the only region that does not have its own assembly.
 
Hard-pressed English taxpayers today see Scottish families enjoying free tuition in higher education (worth £9,000 a year), widespread exemptions from prescription charges and state-funded care for the elderly, and wonder why we don’t get the same benefits, even though we contribute to Scotland’s.
 
AdmirerUS said:
What does it mean that the UK "subsidizes" Scotland to the tune of almost 18 Billion a year? Is that net or gross?

I only ask because here in the states that would be a difficult calculation for any State (not the same as the UK, I realize - but it is the closest model with which I am familiar). That's because there is Federal Money that flows to the states, but some, not all of it is for National programs (roads, Defense, natural resources, etc.) Also, people and businesses in states fund the Federal government through taxes. My national government could not help fund state and local programs if I did not pay my Federal Taxes. Even charity money flows in a very complex way: locally, regionally, nationally and that also finds its way into the overall national economy.

Anyway - that's a sincere question I am asking about the subsidy.
Click to expand...


You are right and so, most of the northern states subsidize the southern state. As the Commonwealth of Massachusetts get back from the Federal Government .62 cents on the dollar, while Tennessee, get $1.27
Or Louisiana get $1.74. It is distributed on need. I have no idea how the UK works.
 
COUNTESS said:
You are right and so, most of the northern states subsidize the southern state. As the Commonwealth of Massachusetts get back from the Federal Government .62 cents on the dollar, while Tennessee, get $1.27
Or Louisiana get $1.74. It is distributed on need. I have no idea how the UK works.
Click to expand...
Well, it is distributed based on need and how effective your own Senators and Representatives are with pork barrel projects. :ROFLMAO::lol::ROFLMAO:
 
Her opinion is already a matter of public record and has been since 1977 so there is no need for her to say anything again now.
 
PrincessOfPeace said:
Hard-pressed English taxpayers today see Scottish families enjoying free tuition in higher education (worth £9,000 a year), widespread exemptions from prescription charges and state-funded care for the elderly, and wonder why we don’t get the same benefits, even though we contribute to Scotland’s.
Click to expand...

It does make me very angry that the idea of a United Kingdom is somewhat flawed when in some parts of the kingdom one can get free tuition, free prescriptions and state-funded care for the elderly, whereas in other parts of the kingdom this is not the case. Hardly united and hardly fair.

It is the same as voting in Westminster - Scottish MPs may vote on issues that affect England, yet purely Scottish issues are voted for in their own parliament.

Frankly, either you have the same benefits throughout the kingdoms for all the citizens or you may as well just let the kingdoms separate.

Today, I can't help feeling jealous of the Scots if they go independent and leave poor old England to the mercy of its own useless public spending policies. I'll probably feel differently tomorrow and the next day i'll feel something else until 18th September!
 
PrincessOfPeace said:
The English — who subsidise Scotland to the tune of £17.6 billion a year according to the most recent Treasury figures — are not allowed a say, as if the Union were about Scotland alone.
Click to expand...

The Scots receive somewhat more per capita from Westminster, compared with the English. But the revenues from the Scottish oil flow to Westminster and this can not be left out of the calculation...

:flowers:
 
Is the referendum today or in a week?
 
The Royal Bank of Scotland announced today it will quit the country if voters chose independence in yet another hammer blow to Scottish separatists.

Now three banking giants, including RBS and Lloyds, say they will move to England if next Thursday’s referendum ends the 307-year Union.
The series of announcements by big firms admitting they would leave Scotland has put the No camp back in the lead in a new poll.

The Survation survey found 53 per cent of Scots would say No in next week’s referendum on independence, with the Yes camp on 47 per cent. One in ten are yet to decide.

John Lewis and Waitrose caused further damage to the Yes campaign today after it said shoppers in Scotland are likely to face higher prices if the country votes in favour of independence, days after B&Q gave the same warning.

And yesterday BP and Shell also came out against independence and Alex Salmond was accused of lying about oil reserves on what was being dubbed the First Minister's Black Wednesday
Click to expand...
Now the Union strikes back: Poll puts No campaign in the lead as Scottish separatists suffer a series of hammer blows on Salmond's Black Wednesday | Mail Online
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The Scots receive somewhat more per capita from Westminster, compared with the English. But the revenues from the Scottish oil flow to Westminster and this can not be left out of the calculation...

:flowers:
Click to expand...

And now we get to the heart of the matter; Scottish oil money. But wasn't it the U.K who paid for the drilling platforms, etc, etc, that made the excavation possible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
488
Tatiana Maria
T
H
Royal Fears and Phobias
Replies
9
Views
1K
Biri
B
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
452
Tatiana Maria
T
Somebody
  • Locked
The Commonwealth's hypothetical independent monarchies
Replies
9
Views
968
Zonk
Zonk

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom