homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Scottish Independence (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Scottish Independence
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, I'm going to confess straight up that I have not read the White Paper recently released. I admit it, I've not had time to read 600+ pages of stuff. So, I'm going to post based on media statements of what it contains. Hopefully I'll get time to look at the primary document some time.

My initial reaction was disappointment that the document produced was a mix of two different things. We have description of what the Scottish Government wants an indpendent Scotland to be like - how we'd relate to the rest of the UK, EU, NATO etc, what Scottish citizenship would mean, and so on. That's the document I was waiting for, an answer to the "what does an 'Independent Scotland' mean?" question when faced with the ballot box next year.

The other part of the document appears to be an SNP manifesto for what they would do if elected to govern an independent Scotland. Which should, IMO, be something produced in the run-up to the first post-independence election rather than be in this white paper. Unless, of course, the policies they want to enact are contingent on independence ... "we want to do X, but can't because the necessary powers are retained in Westminster". Which, for most of what I've seen mentioned in the media doesn't appear to be the case (I may be wrong there, though).

So, my disappointment is really that I need to wade through stuff that's not about independence to see what independence will mean. And, only then can I think about which way to vote.

And, of course, whether independence will be as described in the relevant parts of the White Paper will still depend on other agencies - for example, will the EU accept Scotland as an independent state on the terms the SNP are proposing. We'll only really know that if there's a yes vote and Scotland actually enters into negotiations with other bodies.

[ 02. April 2014, 19:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it too trivial to say that what independence means will be determined by the government of an independent Scotland, after independence has been gained? Perhaps that's more true on the day-to-day level than on the constitutional level, but I think it might be true nonetheless. In that sense, the SNP manifesto and the description of what independence is are very closely linked. When you vote in the referendum, it seems to me that practical reality dictates that you have to bear in mind the proclivities of the likely government just as much as anything else.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

If they want to walk out on the marriage why should they keep all the best stuff in the house?

[ 28. November 2013, 11:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213

 - Posted      Profile for Anglo Catholic Relict   Author's homepage   Email Anglo Catholic Relict   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think we should all get a vote, not just those resident in Scotland. I do not understand why the future of the UK is not determined by the whole population.

I am rather fed up with all the complaining that we hear constantly from Mr Salmond, and I am afraid it is not endearing me to an otherwise very lovely country with lovely people.

Therefore, for the sake of that complaining, my vote would be for Scotland to be declared independent, and given Harry for their King, if they want him. And why not? [Smile]

Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

 - Posted      Profile for Firenze     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

If there is anything would make independence attractive to me, it would be the thought of a Scottish Republic in the euro zone.

However, I will be voting agin, for largely prudential and practical reasons.

Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Is it too trivial to say that what independence means will be determined by the government of an independent Scotland, after independence has been gained?

It's also true to say that what the Union means is determined by the government of the Union. Which, as we know, varies quite considerably over time - every 4-5 years the voters in the Union get the chance to elect a new bunch of people to represent them, and in the process may choose to change the nature of the Union. Is the UK the same under Cameron as it was under Brown or Blair, or even under Thatcher or Major? Of course not?

So, although I agree that what Scotland will be like is going to depend on the policies of the largest party in Holyrood that is an ephemeral gloss over the fundamental constitutional make-up of the nation.

So, by all means tell us what a Holyrood government could do under Independence that it can't do under Devolution, and if the people agree that having powers to change policy in that area is a good thing then that's a plus for the yes campaign. But, why tell us what they'll be able to do whether Scotland is independent or not?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I think we should all get a vote, not just those resident in Scotland. I do not understand why the future of the UK is not determined by the whole population.

Me too. I've long held the opinion that what is needed is a three fold process. An initial referendum in Scotland to determine if, in principle without any specific details, the people of Scotland would want independence. Followed, if the answer to that is 'yes', by detailed negotiations between Holyrood, Westminster, Brussels and other interested parties to define the terms of seperation between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and how Scotland then relates to the EU and other international bodies. This would then be followed by a UK wide referendum to ask whether the constitutional changes to the UK are agreeable to the population of the UK. Admittedly that creates an interesting problem if that last vote is overwhelmingly in favour in Scotland and against in the rest of the UK - though, not possibly as interesting as if Scotland votes no and everyone else votes yes.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To start with, I don't think the Union is in good shape, or really ever has been. But I also don't think it's currently a case of England lording it over everybody else - I think it's London lording it over everybody else. All of the dissatisfaction expressed in Scotland about the Westminster government is present in the regions of England too, but it gets less coverage and has less political history tied up with it. But for me, the question is not so much about splitting the Union as it is about getting away from the mentality of "If it's good for London it's good for everyone; if it's a problem for London, it's a problem for everyone."

Having said that, I think what I've heard of the current proposals for Scotland's independence is a mess. One of the key problems, I think, is the currency. It would really make no sense for England to allow Scotland to keep the pound, because if the Scottish economy went down the tubes at some point, it would then drag the rest of the UK economy with it. Why would we want to allow that? So I think Scotland must either go for the euro, or have its own currency.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the Scottish want to keep the Queen as head of state and to also keep the pound as their currency, I have to ask, what is the point?

It's not independance. It might be something, but it isn't independance. It's like those 30-odd year olds who still live at home with their parents; whatever they call their living arrangements they are not independant.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If the Scots are going to be independent then the West Lothian question will finally be answered.

And the rest of the UK will have another £4bn or so to either knock-off the deficit or spend on something we need - like schools, hospitals, etc.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What will it mean for the politics of the rest of the UK? The Tories aren't too popular up in Scotland right, so does that mean without Scotland the rest of us will be struck Blue indefinitely?

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But that's the problem isn't it? In order to get the Scottish people to vote yes to independence Salmond is basically saying, 'nothing will change' You'll still have £ Sterling, you'll still have the Queen ...

He knows that if he said 'Scottish Republic, Euro, etc, just like the republic if Ireland, he'd get no support. He wants it both ways.

silly man.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think we should invade and call everything north of the present border 'England' [Biased]

Or else the English should declare independence first.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As far as keeping the Queen is concerned, when Elizabeth I died, ending the Tudor dynasty, the Scottish king James became king of both Scotland and England. From 1603 to 1707, one monarch reigned over both countries.

Independence would mean a return to the 1603 to 1707 position.

It's not as though the monarchy is entirely "English" given that the Queen traces her descent from the Scottish Stuart line.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

You'll find she's the Scottish Queen. The Scots are just letting the English share her.

The right of succession passes through Sophia of Hanover, her mother Elizabeth Stuart, and back to James VI of Scotland. James was King of Scotland only when Elizabeth was born.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One of the key problems, I think, is the currency. It would really make no sense for England to allow Scotland to keep the pound, because if the Scottish economy went down the tubes at some point, it would then drag the rest of the UK economy with it. Why would we want to allow that?

Contrariwise, the value of the pound is not going to be set by Scottish interests. It's going to be set by the Bank of England. There's no case in justice for giving an independent Scotland equal input into the decision process with England. So in practice, the Bank of England will consult the interests of the City of London, and maybe in good weather, the rest of the English economy. The Scottish economy will be more tied to the English economy than it is now.

(So I find myself agreeing with both Adeodatus and deano on this. I wonder how often that's going to happen.)

Also, apparently Salmond wants a separate Scottish Broadcasting Association rather than the BBC. I can't approve that idea either.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...the value of the pound is not going to be set by Scottish interests. It's going to be set by the Bank of England. There's no case in justice for giving an independent Scotland equal input into the decision process with England. So in practice, the Bank of England will consult the interests of the City of London, and maybe in good weather, the rest of the English economy. The Scottish economy will be more tied to the English economy than it is now.

ISTM this is a gaping hole in the SNP's proposal, and I've not seen any proper answer or explanation. I'd understand if the SNP were saying that they'd seek to use Sterling for a limited period but then establish their own currency as soon as possible, but that's not at all what they're saying, is it?

In fact, did I hear rightly that they'd intend to join the EU as an independent nation, and furthermore that this would necessarily entail adopting the Euro? A currency over which they'd have even less influence than they would over the pound. It seems such an incoherent position for the SNP to hold...

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re Queen and monarchy:

Queens and kings of the United Kingdom, are also queens and kings of: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

So, no. If the Scots want independence they can keep the monarchy or not. It is their choice, not the choice of anyone else.

And for additional information, listen to this:
The Old Sod: there's none more Scots than the Scots abroad.
"For the thistle and the maple leaf
Are the emblems of the free. "

[ 28. November 2013, 14:03: Message edited by: no prophet ]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, by all means tell us what a Holyrood government could do under Independence that it can't do under Devolution, and if the people agree that having powers to change policy in that area is a good thing then that's a plus for the yes campaign. But, why tell us what they'll be able to do whether Scotland is independent or not?

Because Salmond hope's he'll win by conflating the constitutional issue of independence with the populist issues of the day?

But apart from that mild cynicism, I can't disagree with you.

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

 - Posted      Profile for Firenze     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we should invade and call everything north of the present border 'England'

Aye, that'll work.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

They already do have their own currency and queen.

Why do you assume that those things belong more specially to England than to the other countries in the UK?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

They already do have their own currency and queen.

Why do you assume that those things belong more specially to England than to the other countries in the UK?

Because they want independence, not just devolution.
The Republic of Ireland no longer has the Queen or the Pound; neither does Zimbabwe.

If Scotland wants full independence let it cut all the stings like those 2 examples and have its own currency and its own form of republican government.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
and go the way of Zimbabwe?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
and go the way of Zimbabwe?

It depends on who the President is, surely.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The proposal is to dissolve the 1707 Union of Parliaments. Prior to that, the Scottish monarchy also ruled over England. If there is a "Yes" vote, then the situation re the monarchy will revert to the pre-1707 position. Elizabeth I of Scotland will simultaneously be Elizabeth II of England and Wales.

Any future monarchs will be crowned in Scotland using the Scottish crown jewels.

Of all the proposals, I would have thought that the position of the monarchy was the least contentious.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FWIW, when I became a Notary Public, I swore an oath of fealty to my liege lady Elizabeth, Queen of Scots; the wording of the oath had not been changed in 1707, and hence my oath was to the Queen of Scots.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

They already do have their own currency and queen.

Why do you assume that those things belong more specially to England than to the other countries in the UK?

Because they want independence, not just devolution.
The Republic of Ireland no longer has the Queen or the Pound; neither does Zimbabwe.

If Scotland wants full independence let it cut all the stings like those 2 examples and have its own currency and its own form of republican government.

Having been through 2 referendums by Quebec on leaving Canada, it is rather clear that it does not work this way. Your wish to "cut all strings" is not for the English/UK to say. The ideas with separation and independence seem to be win referendum and then figure out what it means. The stark definition of in or out, is exactly not what happens. Negotiation comes later. It is naive to think otherwise.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Of all the proposals, I would have thought that the position of the monarchy was the least contentious.

Me too. The Crown is divisible, isn't it? Making the Australian Crown, the Canadian Crown and the British Crown separate things. If that's true, it surely isn't a stretch to separate out the British Crown?

What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

Absolutely, and I mentioned this upthread. The SNP position seems totally incoherent to me.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dafyd:
quote:
James was King of Scotland only when Elizabeth was born.
Actually I think you'll find he was not even a twinkle in his father's eye when Elizabeth was born... but he certainly became King of England when she died, at which time he'd been King of Scots for several decades.

It's the SNP's position on currency that I find completely impossible to understand. Of course it could just be a cynical attempt to gain support from the undecided and after the votes are in it will turn out that they were secretly intending to adopt the Euro all along...

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Queen is, of course, by a distinct and separate right the Queen of Scotland as well as Queen of England (which is one reason why the Sun's "Where is our queen? Where is her flag?" headline was offensive to a good many Scots when she was at Balmoral at the time of Diana's death). Whether she remains queen of Scotland (as of e.g. Canada and Australia) is a separate issue from whether Scotland continues to be governed from Westminster.

As for the pound, there is no reason why Scotland cannot do as the Republic of Ireland did for many years, and have a currency pegged at parity with the pound sterling. Whether it would continue to be in Scotland's interests to maintain that connection to a currency no longer under its control is another matter

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd:
quote:
James was King of Scotland only when Elizabeth was born.
Actually I think you'll find he was not even a twinkle in his father's eye when Elizabeth was born... but he certainly became King of England when she died, at which time he'd been King of Scots for several decades.
Not Elizabeth Tudor - Elizabeth Stuart. Elizabeth Stuart was James VI's daughter.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

Absolutely, and I mentioned this upthread. The SNP position seems totally incoherent to me.
Of course they're incoherent. I've seen this entire show before. See Quebec Separation Referendums, 1980 and 1995. The question of currency and other "hard sovereignty" issues like defence were nagging issues in Canada. Quebec economists widely panned the PQ for proposing to keep the Canadian dollar both times. There was some talk of creating a new Quebec currency (to be called the Piastre) but it didn't go anywhere.

Rene Levesque dismissed their concerns as "mere matters of plumbing."

The SNP will waffle as much as it can to try an attract "soft nationalists". The PQ did the same. Once it gets a majority, it's off the races.

The PQ also mused about keeping the Queen too.

Oh well, Sovereignty is dead as a doornail now in Quebec after the PQ just finished alienating and insulting every immigrant in the province. I wouldn't give a piastre (hehe) for their chances on the Island of Montreal next election.

You'll excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out with a spoon, the Scottish Independence Referendum looks like nothing but a bad B-movie rerun of the Quebec Referendums to me.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898

 - Posted      Profile for otyetsfoma   Email otyetsfoma   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You did not have to live through the dreadful Thatcher years Soberpreacherskid. No Canadian govt has ever been horrid to PQ!_ they have all leaned over backwards to appease her. even tolerating the ethnic cleansing that brought me here! Were I lining in Scotland I would certainly want to make sure we would never suffer that sort of thing again. As I live in England I hope they don't secede, as England and Wales would be worse off without them, but I couldn't blame them if they go.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As is usual in these threads, I can't really understand giving up a comfortable status quo for an uncertain future over silly issues like "national pride." I know it's not my country and all, but I just can't fathom why Scottish independence would be worth the bother.

Also, the expectation that countries like Spain would let Scotland just waltz into the EU seems really unrealistic.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As is usual in these threads, I can't really understand giving up a comfortable status quo for an uncertain future over silly issues like "national pride." I know it's not my country and all, but I just can't fathom why Scottish independence would be worth the bother.

I guess it depends what you mean by "comfortable status quo". After all, if a bunch of separationists hadn't decided to make a go of it 300-odd years ago the USA would still be part of Britain as well...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I call it a comfortable status quo because I can't see how being part of the UK is much of a burden to the Scottish people. From what I've heard on these threads, more tax money goes north than comes south, and because England doesn't have its own parliament, Scotland has more say in English matters than English MPs have in Scottish matters. Again, the case may be good enough for the Scottish, and I have no horse in the race. I'm only saying that I wouldn't support it if I were Scottish. But I tend to prefer status quos to uncertain futures.

As for the American Revolution, I probably wouldn't have supported independence back then either, since the stories of British oppression of the American colonies were clearly absurd. I live in the home of the Boston Tea Party, and the museum for the event totally leaves out the fact that the tea tax was imposed to pay for a war that the colonies demanded and the British parliament didn't want, and furthermore subsidized the East India Company which brought the colonies cheaper, higher quality tea. But damned if Boston tea smugglers were going to put up with that!

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

Does it follow that the Bank of England wouldn't? If Scotland retained the pound, a decision by the Bank that buggered up the Scottish economy would also bugger up the pound itself, and thus the English economy too, surely?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
You did not have to live through the dreadful Thatcher years Soberpreacherskid. No Canadian govt has ever been horrid to PQ!_ they have all leaned over backwards to appease her. even tolerating the ethnic cleansing that brought me here! Were I lining in Scotland I would certainly want to make sure we would never suffer that sort of thing again. As I live in England I hope they don't secede, as England and Wales would be worse off without them, but I couldn't blame them if they go.

England and Wales, hey? What about Northern Ireland?

I think Scottish independence might destabilize N.Ireland badly. Unionists feel much more kinship with the Scots than they do with the English. I think they'd feel "out on a limb" both geographically and culturally. Dangerous, ISTM.

More mischievously, might the English take the opportunity to argue that Northern Ireland should really count as part of Scotland? [Devil]

Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

Does it follow that the Bank of England wouldn't? If Scotland retained the pound, a decision by the Bank that buggered up the Scottish economy would also bugger up the pound itself, and thus the English economy too, surely?
At present, the Bank of England has to consider the whole of the UK. If Scotland was to separate, the Bank of England's responsibility would presumably cover only the rUK (to use the abbreviation that's doing the rounds). Of course the affect of any decision that affects Scotland badly and which in turn has a knock-on effect on the rUK would no doubt weigh on the Bank's mind, but they'd presumably be very much an afterthought?

I haven't looked at this closely, but it seems to me that Salmond and co might be arguing that the Bank of England should continue effectively as before, with equal responsibility for the rUK and for Scotland. If this is correct, the SNP aren't really calling for independence at all, so far as I can see.

More broadly, it seems to me that the SNP's entire plans depends on English goodwill. I'm not sure that's guaranteed. It's like a spouse saying 'you've done nothing wrong, but I'm divorcing you and I want you to continue being nice to me after we split. By the way I won't be cancelling all the joint accounts.'

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dunno. It seems to me that so many English businesses have interests in Scotland that English pragmatism would probably prevail in the absence of English goodwill.

(Though one could then argue that if English and Scottish economic interests are so closely aligned then why separate them at all ...)

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Elisabeth Tudor,daughter of Henry VIII was born in 1533.James VI,King of Scots was born in 1567.
The King of Scots became King of England in 1603 upon the death of the 'Virgin Queen'.Even after the expuarlsion of the Catholic Stuarts in 1688 it was indeed through the children and grandchildren of Elisabeth Stuart,only one of whose children was not Catholic,that the present monarchy is descended.

I've often wondered what would happen,were the English to say they wanted independence from the Scots.

Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668

 - Posted      Profile for Stercus Tauri   Email Stercus Tauri   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't see anything helpful in the White Paper about citizenship - just some offhand waffle about "future Scottish governments will have the power to determine rules on citizenship and nationality". Who will be a citizen? I was born in England (the result of a disagreement between my father and Adolf Hitler), but my children were born in Scotland, where I lived, got some education, and worked for a good many years (and voted in the last referendum). My Dear Old Mother lives there still. Will I get a choice, or will I be a foreigner when I go back to the only place where I feel at home? If I'm a foreigner, then I can give you a good deal on a nearly new Gunn kilt, confound it all.

--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)

Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
At present, the Bank of England has to consider the whole of the UK. If Scotland was to separate, the Bank of England's responsibility would presumably cover only the rUK (to use the abbreviation that's doing the rounds). Of course the affect of any decision that affects Scotland badly and which in turn has a knock-on effect on the rUK would no doubt weigh on the Bank's mind, but they'd presumably be very much an afterthought?

I haven't looked at this closely, but it seems to me that Salmond and co might be arguing that the Bank of England should continue effectively as before, with equal responsibility for the rUK and for Scotland. If this is correct, the SNP aren't really calling for independence at all, so far as I can see.

The major risk I see for Scotland is parallel to what has happened in the Eurozone - Greece et al would have liked to lower their interest rates and devalue their currency a few years ago, but they couldn't because 'their' currency is the Euro and Greece is just a small part of the Eurozone.

If, at some point in the future, the Scottish economy starts to perform much better or worse than the 'rUK' economy, the Scots won't be able to do much about it and will be stuck with whatever the rUK government / Bank of England decide to do. And if Scotland seeks to join the Eurozone then this problem will only be worse because Scotland will be an even smaller part of the overall currency zone that it's in.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
daisymay

St Elmo's Fire
# 1480

 - Posted      Profile for daisymay     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And Scotland had much more contact between Ireland and Norway, while England fought often with them. Many of us have all that within us.

And old Elizabeth 1 (that's also why Scots refuse to call the Elisabeth Queen now as "2" ) had her cousin, the Queen on Scotland who had come down to England, to be killed there. Her sun was also Elizabeth's cousin and he became King in England as well as all around.

--------------------
London
Flickr fotos

Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dafyd:
quote:
Not Elizabeth Tudor - Elizabeth Stuart. Elizabeth Stuart was James VI's daughter.

Oh right! Sorry - misunderstanding caused by Too Many Elizabeths. Nearly as bad as the monstrous regiment of Marys that annoyed John Knox so much...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002

 - Posted      Profile for Ronald Binge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not so long ago, Wee Eck was talking a lot about the Republic of Ireland as an example. After all, we jumped out of the United Kingdom first and had a bit of prosperity at the time so no surprise there. Of course, not a lot of chat since the C*ltic T*ger dropped dead of a surfeit of cronyism and dodgy pyramid selling of property.

There are plenty of exemplary tales of just how Ireland worked the nuts and bolts of independence, and unsurprisingly it appears how no one in The Other Island has paid any attention to it. For those who really want to see how the previous divorce in the United Kingdom happened, do yourselves a favour and google "shilling off the old age pension", the External Relations Act 1936 and the Ireland Act 1949. Oh and HM the Queen's visit to ROI in 2011.

The Irish precedent regarding the currency was that there was a "Saorstat Pound" created in 1928. The Irish banks all held deposits in London and the Saorstat Pound, later the Irish Pound, was exchangeable on a one for one basis with Sterling right up to when we joined the ERM in 1979 and the UK didn't. No seat in the Bank of England, no say on interest rates.

The only other point I'd like to make is that at some point the Nats after independence will have to make decisions that will break Scottish practice with the UK. Medical Cards are means tested here and there is consequently a much greater dependence on expensive private health insurance (or none at all) here, whereas social welfare provision is far more generous than in the UK. These are the consequences of independence.

By the way, if Scots get fed up with the Scottish Broadcasting Service they can do what Irish people do when they are fed up with RTE. God bless digital satellite and feck the begrudgers!

--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)

Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
The Irish precedent regarding the currency was that there was a "Saorstat Pound" created in 1928. The Irish banks all held deposits in London and the Saorstat Pound, later the Irish Pound, was exchangeable on a one for one basis with Sterling right up to when we joined the ERM in 1979 and the UK didn't. No seat in the Bank of England, no say on interest rates.

My knowledge of Irish history may be out here, but isn't a key difference between the Ireland of 1949 - 1979 and Scotland today is that the former was a small, largely agrarian economy, whereas the latter is a much larger, diverse economy including a significant financial sector?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
You did not have to live through the dreadful Thatcher years Soberpreacherskid. No Canadian govt has ever been horrid to PQ!_ they have all leaned over backwards to appease her. even tolerating the ethnic cleansing that brought me here! Were I lining in Scotland I would certainly want to make sure we would never suffer that sort of thing again. As I live in England I hope they don't secede, as England and Wales would be worse off without them, but I couldn't blame them if they go.

The Conscription Crises in both Wars weren't horrid? The Manitoba Schools Question, Regulation 17 in Ontario, they weren't horrid (they did no favours for Francophones in Manitoba and Ontario)?

No, the real truth is that Canada is like a old married couple: both parties tolerate each others faults, they may be incredibly cranky but when it comes right down to it, there's still love there.

The Dominion Government, in its wisdom, usually makes laws of general application and doesn't single out a particular province or area, unless it's something like Fisheries where you have to and its glaringly obvious that's the way it works.

Sorry you weren't around for the Charter of Rights, otyetsfoma, it put paid to many of the PQ's excesses. It's why nobody in Ottawa is worried about the sick joke that is Quebec's Charter of Values. Everyone with a brain (including Quebec's own lawyers) and those with an internet connection to laws.justice.gc.ca can see that Quebec's ridiculous exercise in discrimination is dead on arrival in the Courts.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a quick correction. Scotland is a net contributor to UK coffers at present - that's partly why the Westminster parties are so desperate, they know that Scotland will be better off financially than the rump of the UK.

As to the Bank of England, it is a nationalised institution and, like other nationalised institutions (not that there are many left now with Royal Mail gone), the appropriate sharing of its assets will need to be decided post independence. Besides, it's not like the BoE currently pays much attention to what is happening in Scotland when setting interest rates. Like the rest of the "national" government it's focus is on London and the South East of England.

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools