Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
BBC accused of anti-independence bias after editing out Salmond’s reply to ‘bank exodus’ question

The BBC faces accusations of anti-independence bias after its political editor, Nick Robinson, produced a report that wrongly claimed Alex Salmond had ignored his question during a heated press conference.

Calling into question the impartiality of the publicly-owned broadcaster, the veteran BBC correspondent edited out Salmond’s lengthy answer, in which the First Minister claimed the BBC had skewed facts and colluded with the Treasury to undermine the “Yes” campaign.
Click to expand...
http://rt.com/uk/187344-bbc-scottish-independence-bias/
 
cepe said:
But I don't know how the decision is made. I feel v ignorant of not understanding the process. How did Australia, NZ and the other realms decide on the Queen as Head of State? Did they decide or was the decision placed upon them and who by (ie British Government or the newly established realm government)?
.
Click to expand...

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were semiautonomous British colonies until they were granted sovereignty from the UK parliament under the Statute of Westminster. Keeping the Queen as Head of State was therefore just a continuation of the status quo prior to sovereignty rather then something they "decided" or voted for. Once those original dominions became sovereign though, they were also given the freedom to dump the Queen in the future if they so wished, as South Africa did in 1961 when it became a republic.

The only caveat is that, in order to become a republic, the dominions must follow the amendment procedures set out in their own constitutions. In Canada, that would require the consent of both the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces. In Australia, the end of the monarchy would have to be approved in a referendum by a majority of voters nationwide and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. In New Zealand, since there is no qualified constitutional amendment procedure, an ordinary act of parliament would in theory suffice, but I doubt any NZ government would introduce legislation to that effect without holding a popular referendum first.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Is that measured by Irish people being paid in Eurand buying goods with Euro or is that measured by UK citizens who have to exchange Pounds against Euros which always causes everything becoming expensive? For British citizens the EU seems very expensive because they see prices, for an example 100 Euro and make it 100 Pounds in their head but in reality it is around 80 Pounds.

The Irish have a GDP per capita of 43,304 US $ while the UK citizens enjoy a considerably lower GDP per capita of 36,209 US $ (World Development Indicators database, World Bank. Database updated on 1 July 2014. Accessed on 2 July 2014.) .
Click to expand...


According to the IMF, Ireland's per capita GDP in purchasing power parity was US$ 39,547 in 2013 versus the UK's US$ 37,407, which is just slightly lower. By comparison, France's per capita GDP in PPP in 2013 was estimated by the IMF at US$ 35,784. The World Bank has different estimates due to differences in methodology.

Keep also in mind that southeastern England in particular has a per capita GDP that is much higher than the UK average. Global UK per capita GDP is dragged down by some relatively poorer areas of the kingdom, including Scotland for example.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were semiautonomous British colonies until they were granted sovereignty from the UK parliament under the Statute of Westminster. Keeping the Queen as Head of State was therefore just a continuation of the status quo prior to sovereignty rather then something they "decided" or voted for. Once those original dominions became sovereign though, they were also given the freedom to dump the Queen in the future if they so wished, as South Africa did in 1961 when it became a republic.

The only caveat is that, in order to become a republic, the dominions must follow the amendment procedures set out in their own constitutions. In Canada, that would require the consent of both the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of all ten provinces. In Australia, the end of the monarchy would have to be approved in a referendum by a majority of voters nationwide and by a majority of voters in a majority of states. In New Zealand, since there is no qualified constitutional amendment procedure, an ordinary act of parliament would in theory suffice, but I doubt any NZ government would introduce legislation to that effect without holding a popular referendum first.
Click to expand...


I actually seriously doubt this. If in 1867 when Canada became a Dominion they had wanted to be a republic I seriously believe that there would have been a fight.

The British were willing to allow Canadian confederation because keeping Canada a colony was getting too expensive and there had been fighting (albeit far earlier) in an attempt to assert Canadian independence. However, as much as we became an independent country in 1867, we also remained under British control. We had no constitution, we had no control over foreign affairs, and when we couldn't solve a problem ourselves the British did it. Not to mention the fact that we had a British Governor-General.

All these other things came much later in Canadian history, as I suspect they did in the history of the other Dominions. As such I don't think it was until well into the 20th century that any one of these Dominions really had the "choice" to become a republic.

With Scotland, things are different because independence (if it happens) is happening in a very different way. They're having a referendum, yes or no on independence. To me it seems like unless they have a three tiered vote - yes for independence with a monarchy, yes for independence with a republic, or no for no independence - then the issue of a republic is not at this time on the table. Since doing that would split the yes votes it makes more sense to not do it at this time, but rather take a second referendum at a later date if independence is achieved now.
 
Ish said:
I actually seriously doubt this. If in 1867 when Canada became a Dominion they had wanted to be a republic I seriously believe that there would have been a fight.
Click to expand...

My point was that Canada was not granted the power in 1867 to become a republic in a manner that would be consistent with British law. In fact, technically speaking, Canada only got that power on its own in 1982 although, between 1931 and 1982, the established constitutional convention was that the UK parliament would have enacted legislation to make Canada a republic if the the Canadian parliament had so requested.

To become a republic in 1867, Canada would probably have had to make a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) pretty much as the US did in 1776. Whether the UK would have accepted such UDI peacefully or responded with force (as was the case in the Canadian rebellions of 1837-38), it is a matter of speculation that cannot be answered.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
It is not all doom and gloom since Ireland decided to say farewell to the Queen anyway, which is what the Unionists try to scare the Scots with. (And the Irish never had the pleasure of a giant oil bubble offshore).
Click to expand...

Let's see if I understand it. The Nats don't trust:

1) The chief secretary of the Treasury, who is a career civil servant with no political party affiliation;

2) The governor of the Bank of England, who is Canadian, and also has no partisan affiliation;

3) The chief economist of Deutsche Bank, who is a German with a PhD from Princeton and also a former employee of the IMF;

4) The president of the European Comission (now former president), who of course is Portuguese and has no conection to UK political parties;

5) The PMs of Australia and Canada;

6) NATO's Danish general secretary ;

7) The American Nobel prize laureate, Paul Krugman, and,

8) Incidentally, the IMF itself.


They do however trust Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and others alike who tell them that all of the above, plus the CEOs of most top 100 UK companies, the Scottish banks and insurance firms, most Scottish newspapers, etc. are in league with those "effing English Tories" to lie to the Scottish people and scare them about the "doom and gloom" of independence.

As a school student , I learned in History class how nationalism fed on irrationality, but I never imagined I would witness it personally in my life tiime in a 21st century western European country !
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
[....]
Click to expand...

It is not about ration but about emotion. When ration would prevail, the Kingdom of the Netherlands should join the Federal Republic of Germany: both economies are extremely identical and interconnected. What would serve the interests of the Dutch better than being part of the economic and political giant which is the Federal Republic of Germany? The Dutch however, with little ration but lots of emotion, then think: "Over our dead body!"

Apparently the calls by the Scottish nationalists fall in fertile soil. There must be a reason for that. The ration says that Scottish interests are best managed by the Scots themselves. Scottish future should be in Scottish hands. To this pretty strong ration we can add the emotion of the Scottish identity and its great history, voilà... there it is.

The unionists urge the Scots to stay together because... "aren't we great together?" The Scots then look around, look what the state of the United Kingdom is, the policies of "Westminster" which gave them the Poll Tax, the Bedroom Tax, the use of Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new (failed) methods of local government finance. Then the question "Aren't we great together?" is probably extremely difficult to answer, other dan with hell and doom and gloom.

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
It is not about ration but about emotion. When ration would prevail, the Kingdom of the Netherlands should join the Federal Republic of Germany: both economies are extremely identical and interconnected. What would serve the interests of the Dutch better than being part of the economic and political giant which is the Federal Republic of Germany? The Dutch however, with little ration but lots of emotion, then think: "Over our dead body!"

Apparently the calls by the Scottish nationalists fall in fertile soil. There must be a reason for that. The ration says that Scottish interests are best managed by the Scots themselves. Scottish future should be in Scottish hands. To this pretty strong ration we can add the emotion of the Scottish identity and its great history, voilà... there it is.

The unionists urge the Scots to stay together because... "aren't we great together?" The Scots then look around, look what the state of the United Kingdom is, the policies of "Westminster" which gave them the Poll Tax, the Bedroom Tax, the use of Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new (failed) methods of local government finance. Then the question "Aren't we great together?" is probably extremely difficult to answer, other dan with hell and doom and gloom.

:flowers:
Click to expand...
I agree. From what I've read and heard from the Scots, and I don't pretend to be an expert on this issue, is that they feel that the government is governing in favor of England. That and combine that with what you said, it's easy to tell why there are so many Yes voters.
 
Dman said:
70 per cent of English want to keep UK united-
70 per cent of English want to keep UK united - ITV News
Click to expand...

Of course they want. They are outpowering the Scots with 10 to 1, the Scottish oil revenues go to "Westminster" and the UK is happy to use Scotland's great waters to house the fleet of Vanguard-class nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines and the Trident nuclear missiles, whether the Scots themselves like it or not.

:flowers:
 
NORTH Sea oil giants BP and Shell yesterday warned Scotland’s future is being put at risk by the “highly misleading” forecasts of Alex Salmond’s separatists.

The two companies waded into the independence debate as oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood said that Alex Salmond is gambling the future of Scotland’s children on “fantasy” predictions of oil revenues.

Sir Ian, one of the founding fathers of the offshore industry, warned that a slowdown in production means that North Sea revenues “will simply not be there in 25 to 30 years’ time”.

The former Wood Group chief executive warned that production is likely to fall to as low as 200,000 barrels a day by 2050, compared to the 1.45 million a day produced at present, while tax revenues would reduce over time as companies struggle to replace ageing platforms and pipelines.
He added that Scotland would be better placed to deal with the economic consequences of diminishing North Sea revenues as part of the UK.
Click to expand...
Top oil firms back Sir Ian Wood’s warning over £2bn North Sea shortfall | UK | News | Daily Express
 
PrincessOfPeace said:
Top oil firms back Sir Ian Wood’s warning over £2bn North Sea shortfall | UK | News | Daily Express
Click to expand...

One of the problems regarding North Sea oil is not how much of it is left, but how easy it will be to extract from the sea-bed. The oil is not in some giant great underground pool, it is distributed in pockets and seams here, there and everywhere in the bed-rock and as time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to extract, more time consuming and economically unviable to extract a bit here, a bit there etc. Just like coal and ore, once all the good bits have been mined, what's left is millions of little bits and pieces left available.
 
The no campaign has the lead right now and IMO the undecideds will vote No as well. There is just too much at risk to vote Yes if one isn't sure about the future because this is forever. Scotland goes and there is no running back when they can't pay their bills.
 
The danger will be when the undecided remain home or the NO-voters remain home because they think "it is all in the pocket" while the YES-voters will have the commitment, zest and thrive to storm the polling stations. Whatever the outcome, Mr Salmond has delivered a formidable fight of one against all. The formidable powers behind the Conservatives, Labour, the LibDems, the multinationals, the newspapers, the banks, all trying to crush one man and one party. It is remarkable how Mr Salmond has, so far, remained on his feet and I feel something like Astérix and Obélix finding their little Gallic village surrrounded by the crushing power of the Roman Empire, the fortresses Babaorum, Aquarium, Laudanum and Petibonum besieging them...

Mr Salmond is the underdog and he plays it brilliantly, chapeau to him, whatever the outcome.
 
Jon Williams @WilliamsJon · 26m
The Queen overheard at church: "I hope people will think very carefully about the future." Classic! In saying little, says a lot. #indyref
 
PrincessOfPeace said:
The no campaign has the lead right now and IMO the undecideds will vote No as well. There is just too much at risk to vote Yes if one isn't sure about the future because this is forever. Scotland goes and there is no running back when they can't pay their bills.
Click to expand...


Personally, I hope the No Campaign wins for your reason that I have highlighted. As I have said in an earlier post of mine upthread, there would also be many things that would need to change if Scotland were to become independent (I was talking about this with some friends the other week, and we also thought that Scotland would need to change their general web address as we think they wouldn't be allowed to have .co.uk anymore).

I found an interesting article from The Daily Mail on the Union Jack:

The Union Jack will have to be dumped as Britain’s national flag if Scotland votes to separate, the Government’s official advisers warn today.
One leading expert described Whitehall as ‘terrified’ and ‘woefully unprepared’ for the risk of losing an iconic UK emblem. Another key adviser, Lord West, said it was ‘a nonsense’ to suggest Scotland’s saltire cross could remain part of the design.
The Government’s main advisers on flag policy are the Parliamentary Flags and Heraldry Committee, and the Flag Institute.
Lord West, deputy chairman of the committee, said: ‘In the event of a Yes vote I cannot see how you can save the flag of the United Kingdom.’
Click to expand...

You could end up with a flag like this, warns Lord West: Union Jack will have to be dumped as Britain's national flag if Scotland votes to separate | Mail Online
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
There is no any reason for the Union Jack to be dumped. Typical Daily Mail trash. The Russians use the flag of the Tsarist Empire, the Tsarist coat-of-arms and the presidential standard with the two-headed Romanov Eagle is derived from the imperial standard.

Pic: http://www.comtourist.com/images/large/russia-08/moscow-russian-flag-01.jpg
Click to expand...

It sure would NOT make any sense to keep the Scottish part of the Union Jack if the country says no to the union. I would think England, Wales and Northern Ireland would raise a fuss over that!
 
With regard to the Union Flag, the third picture down in the DM report is how the flag would look without the Scottish Saltire. The matter has at the very least already been discussed at government level: a few months ago an official was photographed walking into No 10 Downing Street with supposedly secret documents - the wind caught the first page revealing a picture on the very same flag.
Personally, I wouldn't wish to see the blue go as I like the colour. Maybe the current blue could be modified to a lovely nice marine blue to reflect the seas that surround us!?
 
MarNoe said:
It sure would NOT make any sense to keep the Scottish part of the Union Jack if the country says no to the union. I would think England, Wales and Northern Ireland would raise a fuss over that!
Click to expand...

Of course it makes sense. The Union Jack belongs to the United Kingdom. Scotland will possibly break away from the Union. The legal "successor" of the Union can decide to continue with the flag for historical reasons.

These historical reasons are exactly the reason why départements in my country still use the Bourbon fleur-de-lys in their Arms, despite the fact that France is no longer a monarchy.

This is the coat-of-arms of my very own département (Allier) in my very own republican France, look and be surprised: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...px-Blason_comte_fr_Clermont_(Bourbon).svg.png

Residents in the Allier (code départementale 3) can use this sticker, with this showing Bourbon fleur-de-lys: http://www.mon-blason.fr/150-212-large/autocollants-03-avec-blason-allier-bourbonnais.jpg on their car license plates.

What to think about Québec in Canada, proudly waving the Bourbon fleur-de-lys, the Crown they once belonged to? See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Drapeau_quebec.jpg

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
Of course it makes sense. The Union Jack belongs to the United Kingdom. Scotland will possibly break away from the Union. The legal "successor" of the Union can decide to continue with the flag for historical reasons.

These historical reasons are exactly the reason why départements in my country still use the Bourbon fleur-de-lys in their Arms, despite the fact that France is no longer a monarchy.
Click to expand...

imo You can't compare this flag or the russian flag to the Union Jack, the latter is actually a combination of the flags from the separate countries that form the United Kingdom, if one of those countries breaks away from the union you have to at least think about what that'll mean for the combined flag.

If you want to compare it to another flag, take the United States's flag which has a star for each state. In the past if a state joined, a star would be added. If a state would leave the US, surely a star would have to come off the flag...
 
HereditaryPrincess said:
I found an interesting article from The Daily Mail on the Union Jack:



You could end up with a flag like this, warns Lord West: Union Jack will have to be dumped as Britain's national flag if Scotland votes to separate | Mail Online
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to see what happens to the flag if the Scots leave. It would be nice to see Wales added into the flag in some way. Perhaps replace the Saint Andrew's cross with a Saint David one?

The Royal arms and standards would also have to be updated.
 
See attached link about the Union Jack. It might be worth keeping the Scottish Saltire within the Union Flag if only because on the union of the crowns.

Union Jack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is some interesting information under the title "flag speculation after irish independence".
 
Last edited:
Ish said:
It would be interesting to see what happens to the flag if the Scots leave. It would be nice to see Wales added into the flag in some way. Perhaps replace the Saint Andrew's cross with a Saint David one?

The Royal arms and standards would also have to be updated.
Click to expand...

There is no need to update. Anjou is no longer a Fief of the King of Spain. The Anjou coat-of-arms however is still in the Spanish official coat of arms and flag.

The Republic of Portugal still carries the same coat-of-arms in the flag as it was always used by all Kings since the Reign of Dom Afonso Henriques, King of Portugal (1109-1185).

The Federal Republic of Germany still carries the black Reichsadler which was used since the Holy Roman Empire and all subsequent successors until the day of today.

:flowers:
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
There is no need to update. Anjou is no longer a Fief of the King of Spain. The Anjou coat-of-arms however is still in the Spanish official coat of arms and flag.



The Republic of Portugal still carries the same coat-of-arms in the flag as it was always used by all Kings since the Reign of Dom Afonso Henriques, King of Portugal (1109-1185).



The Federal Republic of Germany still carries the black Reichsadler which was used since the Holy Roman Empire and all subsequent successors until the day of today.



:flowers:
Click to expand...


The arms of the British royals tend to be updated when realms are added or removed. When William III and Mary ruled the Nassau arms were added because of William's Dutch connection. When William died they were removed. When George I came to the throne a Hanoverian element was added, which was removed when Victoria came to the throne and the Hanoverian connection ended. When the British monarchs stopped claiming rule over France the French elements were removed. When Hanover became a kingdom, the Hanoverian element in the British arms changed.

It would be no more appropriate to continue with the current set of arms if Scotland left the union than it was in 1837 to continue with the then current set of arms.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Of course they want. They are outpowering the Scots with 10 to 1, the Scottish oil revenues go to "Westminster" and the UK is happy to use Scotland's great waters to house the fleet of Vanguard-class nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines and the Trident nuclear missiles, whether the Scots themselves like it or not.

:flowers:
Click to expand...


Yes, with excactly the same argument, the Shetlands are contemplating now, that in case of 'YES' they should separate from Scotland .. they can best decide for themselves, what to do with THEIR Oil-Money

:ROFLMAO:

So why shouldn't the rich Lombardia separate from Italy? The south of Germany from the less prosperous parts of the country? Why should any rich City / county support with it's money any other part, which, at the moment, isn't doing that well? Why are we paying tax, that other can eat?

... because that's what a society is there for. We stand for each other, we help each other and in times of need, we pay for each other.... and sometimes we are at the recieving end..
 
because that's what a society is there for. We stand for each other, we help each other and in times of need, we pay for each other.... and sometimes we are at the recieving end..
Click to expand...

AMEN ! Splitting into ever smaller units flies in the face of all sense, logic and history....
 
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
515
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
458
Tatiana Maria
T
Somebody
  • Locked
The Commonwealth's hypothetical independent monarchies
Replies
9
Views
969
Zonk
Zonk

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom