Is tripartisanship over the SNP's bid to retain the £ bullying?

[MrGongGong]

Since Man arrived on earth, and started producing tools for himself, he has endeavoured to make life that bit easier for himself and his family and capitalism simply responds to that desire.

It all depends on whom one sees as "family"

I find it very sad that almost ALL politicians appeal only to self interest
all the "hard working families", "strivers" nonsense

To pretend, as always seems to happen, that somehow that we either have to choose between unfettered free market Capitalism and "Soviet" state run Socialism simply shows a deep lack of imagination.

SO getting back to Scotland, they could ditch the Queen and have Billy Connolly or James McMillan or Annie Lennox

[ahinton]

It all depends on whom one sees as "family"

I find it very sad that almost ALL politicians appeal only to self interest
all the "hard working families", "strivers" nonsense

To pretend, as always seems to happen, that somehow that we either have to choose between unfettered free market Capitalism and "Soviet" state run Socialism simply shows a deep lack of imagination.

SO getting back to Scotland, they could ditch the Queen and have Billy Connolly or James McMillan or Annie Lennox

I don't see Jimmy Mac making a very good Queen. Judith Weir would surely be a better choice since, being Master of her own music, some funds would be saved thereby...

[P. G. Tipps]

SO getting back to Scotland, they could ditch the Queen and have Billy Connolly or James McMillan or Annie Lennox

They certainly could ... but as a clear majority of the Scottish people wish to retain the Queen that would be self-defeating and wholly undemocratic?

[MrGongGong]

They certainly could ... but as a clear majority of the Scottish people wish to retain the Queen

How do you know that ?
Have they been asked ?

[Beef Oven!]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan

?

Constitutional monarchy, population 100% believing in superstition, jealous gods and religion - no thanks.

Replacing GDP as a yardstick - yes please.

[Beef Oven!]

They certainly could ... but as a clear majority of the Scottish people wish to retain the Queen that would be self-defeating and wholly undemocratic?

But, is it not entirely up to British citizens living in Scotland to decide?

Why don't we just wait and see, and respect the outcome?

[P. G. Tipps]

How do you know that ?
Have they been asked ?

Yes.

According to numerous professional opinion polls which, short of having referenda on every single issue, is the only truly realistic and scientific way of 'asking'?

[ahinton]

But, is it not entirely up to British citizens living in Scotland to decide?

As far as to retention of the British monarchy in Scotland is concerned, it certainly should up to them - except that, instead of only "British citizens", it should be all those citizens resident in Scotland who are entitled to vote in the "independence" referundum and in future Scottish General Elections, Scottish local government elections and so on should the "Yes" vote succeed.

Why don't we just wait and see, and respect the outcome?

If by this you refer to the referendum itself (as distinct from the issue of whether or not an "independent" Scotland should retain, or seek to retain, the British monarchy following "independence"), then yes, we have alternatgive to waiting to see its outcome and respecting it provided that the conduct of Thursday week's poll meets accepted standards and no part of it is fraudulent.

That said, the question of the future of the monarchy in Scotland will not be decided by anyone in post-"independence" Scotland unless and until it's put to the vote there; how else will "the Scottish people" (meaning, as for the referendum, all residents of Scotland entitled to vote there) be seen to "decide"? It seems highly unlikely that the monarchy will of its own volition withdrawn itself from post-"independence" Scotland although, being no constitutional expert, I have no idea if it would be allowed to do so purely because Scotland had severed its ties with UK; retention of the monarchy in post-"independence" Scotland would therefore have either to be accepted as a fait accompli (albeit by default and without anything actually have been "fait") or officially put to the vote and it is clear that the latter course of action will be the only way of finding out what voters in Scotland actually want where the monarchy is concerned.

The continuing confusion over the currency has now thrown up a further consideration that I've yet to hear discussed; the mere mention that the "Yes" campaign has allegedly now overtaken the "No" one has knocked almost a (Eurozone) cent and a half off the value of the British pound and bumped its value against the US$ to a little over $1.61 in a matter of hours and, were such to continue for the next fortnight or so until the referendum's over (assuming that its result is clear and it doesn't have to be recounted or re-run), Salmond and his crew could possibly come to believe that it was, after all, just as well that Westmonster (deliberate typo) publicised its refusal to sanction a currency uinion between post-"independence" Scotland and what's left of UK on the grounds that the pound might no longer be worth retaining.

[ahinton]

Yes.

According to numerous professional opinion polls which, short of having referenda on every single issue, is the only truly realistic and scientific way of 'asking'?

Even if that's so, can Scotland, if no longer part of UK, just retain the monarchy by default or would it have to apply to do so, if so it chose? Even if it could retain it by either means, would Scotland's relationship with it remain identical to what it is now? Answers, please, from a British constitutional expert on a postcard, preferably bearing a stamp with no head in the interests of implied partisanship...

[Beef Oven!]

As far as to retentio9n of the British monarchy in Scotland is concerned, it certainly should up to them - except that, instead of only "British citizens", it should be all those citizens resident in Scotland who are entitled to vote in the "independence" referundum and in future Scottish General Elections, Scottish local government elections and so on should the "Yes" vote succeed.


If by this you refer to the referndum itself (as distinct from the issue of whether or not an "independent" Scotland should retain, or seek to retain, the British monarchy following "independence"), then yes, we have alternatgive to waiting to see its outcome and respecting it provided that the conduct of Thursday week's poll meets accepted standards and no part of it is fraudulent.

That said, the question of the future of the monarchy in Scotland will not be decided by anyone in post-"independence" Scotland unless and until it's put to the vote there; how else will "the Scottish people" (meaning, as for the referendum, all residents of Scotland entitled to vote there) be seen to "decide"? It seems highly unlikely that the monarchy will of its own volition withdrawn itself from post-"independence" Scotland although, being no constitutional expert, I have no idea if it would be allowed to do so purely because Scotland had severed its ties with UK; retention of the monarchy in post-"independence" Scotland would therefore have either to be accepted as a fait accompli (albeit by default and without anything actually have been "fait") or officially put to the vote and it is clear that the latter course of action will be the only way of finding out what voters in Scotland actually want where the monarchy is concerned.

The continuing confusion over the currency has now thrown up a further consideration that I've yet to hear discussed; the mere mention that the "Yes" campaign has allegedly now overtaken the "No" one has knocked almost a (Eurozone) cent and a half off the value of the British pound and bumped its value against the US$ to a little over $1.61 in a matter of hours and, were such to continue for the next fortnight or so until the referendum's over (assuming that its result is clear and it doesn't have to be recounted or re-run), Salmond and his crew could possibly come to believe that it was, after all, just as well that Westmonster (deliberate typo) publicised its refusal to sanction a currency uinion between post-"independence" Scotland and what's left of UK on the grounds that the pound might no longer be worth retaining.

Put simply, what I meant, was on any of these issues, it should be left to the British citizens who are resident in Scotland (ruling out, for example, Italian citizens resident in Scotland).

If the monarchy question is addressed post-independence, then it should be left to (presumably) Scottish citizens.

[ahinton]

Put simply, what I meant, was on any of these issues, it should be left to the British citizens who are resident in Scotland (ruling out, for example, Italian citizens resident in Scotland).

If the monarchy question is addressed post-independence, then it should be left to (presumably) Scottish citizens.[/QUOTE]
OK, I understand what you're saying but, if Italian citizens resident in Scotland are entitled to vote in the referendum, shouldn't they likewise and for the same reasons be entitled to vote in a subsequent referendum about the retention or otherwise of the monarchy by a post-"independence" Scotland?

[Beef Oven!]

Not sure why you think Italian citizens should have a say in any of this.

[P. G. Tipps]

Even if that's so, can Scotland, if no longer part of UK, just retain the monarchy by default or would it have to apply to do so, if so it chose? Even if it could retain it by either means, would Scotland's relationship with it remain identical to what it is now? Answers, please, from a British constitutional expert on a postcard, preferably bearing a stamp with no head in the interests of implied partisanship...

Well, presumably like your goodself, I am certainly no constitutional 'expert' ... but then I've always had my grave doubts about the label 'expert' applied to any fallible human being, but we'll leave that to one side! Maybe it has something to do with an early experience with 'a financial expert' ...

However logic surely dictates that if Scotland cannot retain the monarchy by default neither should the remainder of the United Kingdom of Great Britan & Northern Ireland as that entity would no longer exist? Of course, logic rarely come into such matters.

As to what Scotland's relationship with the monarchy would be after a 'Yes' vote I have absolutely no idea and I suspect few constitutional 'experts' might have much idea either. What would the monarch's view be for a start? I cannot see Her Majesty continuing to wave serenely on both sides of the border as if nothing had happened, so she may well decide to abdicate at her age, and, in such a situation with Charlie in prospect, people on both sides might decide the best route would be a republic?

Whilst that might well delight a prominent rump of forum members, for others this whole messy saga is fraught with so many dangers one can only hope it never happens.

Meanwhile, as predicted by many, the pound has started to slump and shares in Scottish companies are sliding. God only knows what things will be like if there actually is a 'Yes' vote.

[ahinton]

Not sure why you think Italian citizens should have a say in any of this.

I'm not saying whether or not they should; I merely question whether citizens of any and all other EU countries (including England and Wales) who by reason of residing in Scotland are entitled to vote in the "independence" referendum should not likewise be entitled to vote in a subsequent referendum held by a future Scottish government on whether or not Scotland retains the monarchy because, if not, the inconsistency would seem hard to justify. For the record, those entitled to vote in the referendum are identified at http://scotreferendum.com/questions/...he-referendum/

[ahinton]

Well, presumably like your goodself, I am certainly no constitutional 'expert' ... but then I've always had my grave doubts about the label 'expert' applied to any fallible human being, but we'll leave that to one side! Maybe it has something to do with an early experience with 'a financial expert' ...

Well, if we leave out the word "expert", there'd still need to be someone whose knowledge of the British constitution in general and its impact on the monarchy in particular to pronounce on whether or not a post"independence" Scotland could or would retain the monarchy by default (even if only temporarily) or whether it would have to apply to retain it if so it chose or ditch it if not (although the latter would presumably be democratically possible only following the outcomes of a referendum on it in Scotland).

However logic surely dictates that if Scotland cannot retain the monarchy by default neither should the remainder of the United Kingdom of Great Britan & Northern Ireland as that entity would no longer exist? Of course, logic rarely come into such matters.

Not so; as I have said before, should Scotland leave UK, there will remain a UK of Great Britain (comprising England and Wales) and Northern Ireland until such time as either Wales follows Scotland's path or Westmonster decides othewise or renames it or both; in other words, Wales would also have to leave before the UK of BG and NI would be forced off the face of the earth.

As to what Scotland's relationship with the monarchy would be after a 'Yes' vote I have absolutely no idea and I suspect few constitutional 'experts' might have much idea either. What would the monarch's view be for a start? I cannot see Her Majesty continuing to wave serenely on both sides of the border as if nothing had happened, so she may well decide to abdicate at her age, and, in such a situation with Charlie in prospect, people on both sides might decide the best route would be a republic?

I don't know either but I somehow suspect that HM the Queen is hoping against hope for a "No" vote and will be deeply distressed by a "Yes" one whatever the consequent implications for the constitutional monarchy might be. I don't see her abdicating on any grounds - not even a "Yes" vote. Whether or not she might continue "to wave serenely on both sides of the border as if nothing had happened" would, I imagine, be dependent upon two factors - firstly whether and to what extent she hands over some of the reins to Charlie while retaining her position (as she has already done on occasion) or becomes too ill to continue with her duties and, perhaps more imporetantly, whether the majority of residents of post-"independence" Scotland would be content to retain the monarchy by default (if indeed that's possible) or apply to keep it (if not).

Whilst that might well delight a prominent rump of forum members, for others this whole messy saga is fraught with so many dangers one can only hope it never happens.

Well, it is indeed a messy saga and, whilst I do believe that residents of Scotland entitled to vote in elections held in Scotland should be given an opportunity to vote in this referendum, vital issues such as those of currency, monarchy and thee rest should have been ironed out before it was announced so that voters would have had a far clearer idea of what it would be that they're voting for. By your hope that "It never happens" I presume you to mean not the referendum itself (which almost certainly will happen) but a majority "Yes" vote; frankly, whichever way it goes (assuming that its result is not so close as to necessitate a recount and possibly even a re-run), it's a shambles now and its outcome will be another.

Meanwhile, as predicted by many, the pound has started to slump and shares in Scottish companies are sliding. God only knows what things will be like if there actually is a 'Yes' vote.

As to the latter factor, Salmond & Co. might well find themseves with no viable alternative to offering a corporation tax sweetener in order that those companies will stay put and their shares rise again, with the possible bonus that some English and Welsh ones might decide to relocate their operations to Scotland; as far as the former's concerned, I've already suggested that the new Scottish government might well find itself relieved that Westmonster rejected the notion of currency uinion between UK and Scotland becuase the "Yes" vote might have damaged the British pound's value so greatly that the Scots would find themselves realising that it ain't worth having.