It's official. The date for an independent Scotland will be...

Jonathan57

I think Scotland should remain part of the UK.

IveSeenTheLight

kelpie35 wrote: »

I am scottish through and through but agree with you 100%

Have decided if this should go ahead and he wins I will move out of scotland, to where, not too sure, but know I could not live with him or his cronies being in charge :eek:

You do realise that in an independent Scotland could vote for any party it wants.

Loughton_Monkey

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You do realise that in an independent Scotland could vote for any party it wants.

So could we last time.

Didn't stop us getting a wet coalition......

System

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Much of the British Constitution is unwritten, and instead relies on the concept of Royal prerogative and precedence, all of which would be lost.

That's an interesting point. The nationalists have I think indicated they would keep the queen as monarch. So unless she became an active hands-on monarch like in the UK, meeting the PM every week, discussing proposals, advising, warning, etc etc, then Scotland would have a governor-general to act in her place, just like Canada, Australia, etc.

IveSeenTheLight

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So could we last time.

Didn't stop us getting a wet coalition......

Won't it therefore be interesting to see how the public vote next time.

Remember, there has not been a coalition since WWII and there has never before been a Conservative / Lib Dem coalition.

The point is, that you have an opportunity to impact the next government, whilst in Scotland, that ability is diluted due to the population differences.

Whilst now, the Scottish vote is roughly 9% of the UK MP's, being independent would mean that the Scottish people get 100% the party(ies) it votes for

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

That's an interesting point. The nationalists have I think indicated they would keep the queen as monarch. So unless she became an active hands-on monarch like in the UK, meeting the PM every week, discussing proposals, advising, warning, etc etc, then Scotland would have a governor-general to act in her place, just like Canada, Australia, etc.

The British monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

I therefore don't believe the Queen is "an active hands-on monarch, meeting the PM every week, discussing proposals, advising, warning, etc etc"

Regardless, what is wrong with being an independent country like Canada or Australia whilst retaining the Queen as the monarch?

System

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I therefore don't believe the Queen is "an active hands-on monarch, meeting the PM every week, discussing proposals, advising, warning, etc etc"

That's exactly what she does do. Didn't you watch Helen Mirren?

Successive prime ministers of all parties have spoken admiringly of the value of her advice, and her sagacity derived from many decades of experience.
In your example of Australia, she once famously, acting through her governor general, dismissed a prime minister for unconstitutional practice.
The Scots would have either to implement that system, or appoint/elect their own president, or conceivably somehow select a new monach.

Generali

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

In your example of Australia, she once famously, acting through her governor general, dismissed a prime minister for unconstitutional practice.

Oooooh, that's a controversial thing to say round these parts.

The Aussies (and also the Secretary to the Governor General who I went to see speak) see the crisis as being wholly Australian. The Queen had no part in it, the GG did what he had to do once Supply had been blocked.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

That's exactly what she does do.

She meets with the PM every week, does she?

I have no doubt she offers advice (after nearly 60 years on the throne and twelve different prime ministers - from Winston Churchill to Dave Cameron, I'm sure she has some sage advice, experience, knowledge and recommendations).

I'm aware that she has a role in approving any bills passed through parliament, my overall understanding of our monarchy is that they do not get involved in the political day to day ongoings.

The Queen may be the font of authority, but it is not her role to determine who should receive her invitation to exercise that authority, nor administer it.

The present-day concept of a constitutional monarchy , where the democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the prime minister, exercise power, with the monarchs having ceded power and remaining as a titular position.

System

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

She meets with the PM every week, does she?

Yes. http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

"The Queen gives a weekly audience to the Prime Minister at which she has a right and a duty to express her views on Government matters. If either The Queen or the Prime Minister are not available to meet, then they will speak by telephone."