Should Scotland be Independent?

[oldbadger]

Well sir, if you do not support The House of Monty Python it is best I take my leave:

If I do a John Cleese silly walk up my road and back.... right now, will you still answer my posts in future?

 

[oldbadger]

While I can't fathom why anyone would willingly be under a monarchy, it's worth pointing out that "wanting the Queen" doesn't necessarily entail wanting to be part of the UK. In fact, most of the places that Elizabeth is Queen of are not part of the UK.

You'd never tell by the way she behaves - she certainly doesn't act like the head of state of Canada or Australia as much as the head of state of the UK - but at least in theory, there's no particular requirement to be part of the UK to have the Queen as your monarch.

At a guess, I would venture that the Queen has served her peoples for longer than you have lived...... about right? Although she doesn't act like one, she is a very very elderly lady, as well as a long serving Queen. So a lot of people cherish her and feel proud about her.

She behaves perfectly..... always has.

Yes..... if Scotland goes independent it can still keep the monarchy.

Let's see how Scotland votes.........

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

She behaves perfectly..... always has.

:biglaugh:

Sorry, I just had to laugh at that.

 

[oldbadger]

:biglaugh:

Sorry, I just had to laugh at that.

That's OK.

Did you have a particular memory in mind?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's OK.

Did you have a particular memory in mind?

I just remember how cold-hearted she was when Princess Diana died. Princess Di was the only royal I liked.

 

[oldbadger]

I just remember how cold-hearted she was when Princess Diana died. Princess Di was the only royal I liked.

Imo, the people thought she did make a mistake in her initial actions after Diana's death. She reacted by going out amongst the people to talk to them and look at their cards etc.

Right in amongst them. Her security team no doubt going spare.

Could you have done that? Could you hack it for one day? One hour?
She's hacked it for 7 decades. And please don't anybody remind me about 65 years, etc..... she was serving during the war.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Imo, the people thought she did make a mistake in her initial actions after Diana's death. She reacted by going out amongst the people to talk to them and look at their cards etc.

Right in amongst them. Her security team no doubt going spare.

Could you have done that? Could you hack it for one day? One hour?
She's hacked it for 7 decades. And please don't anybody remind me about 65 years, etc..... she was serving during the war.

Man, I have no love for royalty in general.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At a guess, I would venture that the Queen has served her peoples for longer than you have lived...... about right?

Lived richly off her people too. Yes, she's been doing that for longer than I've been alive.

Although she doesn't act like one, she is a very very elderly lady, as well as a long serving Queen. So a lot of people cherish her and feel proud about her.

Lots of people feel that way about their grandmothers, too. This doesn't entitle grandmothers to hereditary office.

She behaves perfectly..... always has.

If she's as wonderful and beloved as you say, she would've had no problem winning a popular vote.

 

[oldbadger]

Man, I have no love for royalty in general.

This might surprise you now, after reading all the above, but nor have I got any particular love for royalty. Honest.

But she is different. Talk about guts. I don't know if she still does, but she used to ride in open processions, often in very bright attire, for all to see.... a sitting target for any nutter. I don't know how she has survived to old age.

Winston Churchill was her first (or second?) Prime Minister! :yes: That's 'going back'.

To replace her would be very very hard, if not impossible.

 

[oldbadger]

Lived richly off her people too. Yes, she's been doing that for longer than I've been alive.

The Government's allowance to the Queen has to cover all her expenses. And you seem to think that she has lived the life of Riley..... You just don't know what you're talking about.

Lots of people feel that way about their grandmothers, too. This doesn't entitle grandmothers to hereditary office.

Hereditary burden, more like. Her poor father died young and left her in her youth to pick up the crown ........ out of the blue..... all of it, and all of it's demands.

If she's as wonderful and beloved as you say, she would've had no problem winning a popular vote.

She is popular around the world..... and much respected.

Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Queen Elizabeth II has never given a press interview. Her views on political issues are therefore largely unknown except to those few heads of government in her confidence. Conservative in dress, she is well known for her solid-colour overcoats and matching hats which allow her to be seen easily in a crowd. She attends many cultural events as part of her public role. Her main leisure interests include horse racing, photography, and dogs, especially her Pembroke Welsh corgis.
Always a popular figure in the UK and many other countries, opinion polls have regularly shown that she has an excellent approval rating. Coinciding with her Diamond Jubilee, the Queen experienced an approval rate in the United Kingdom of 90% in 2012. However, she was the second most popular member of the royal family in 2012 with the rate of 48%, after her grandson, Prince William, who was given the rate of 62%.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I look forward to seeing all of the commentary after the referendum and after whatever happens happens, like about five years from now. If Scotland secedes will the rest of the UK take it as an insult? Isn't it an insult, or is it just a flat mate situation? Or is it a situation where one person will be left paying the bill for the flat? Will Scotland benefit or not? Will the UK be injured? So we'll find out later, after all the gobbledygook has been spoken and the decision (which has already been made) comes to a vote.

 

[oldbadger]

I look forward to seeing all of the commentary after the referendum and after whatever happens happens, like about five years from now. If Scotland secedes will the rest of the UK take it as an insult? Isn't it an insult, or is it just a flat mate situation? Or is it a situation where one person will be left paying the bill for the flat? Will Scotland benefit or not? Will the UK be injured? So we'll find out later, after all the gobbledygook has been spoken and the decision (which has already been made) comes to a vote.

Hi Bricks.....

I'm cool with whatever decision the Scots make. I would love it if they voted to keep us with them, but would understand if they wanted total independence.

But at the moment it looks dreadful.... because if the vote is close to 50-50 then that means that the Scots are not in accord, half feeling elated, half very saddened.

So I hope the vote jumps high, one way or t'other.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The 50-50 is a darn good indication that this is not really a vote based upon what people want at all. Like with the presidential elections here in the 'States, you get a 50-50 split when two sides use polling to direct funds at persuading the right voters and getting more people to vote. Its because spending has to be justified, so each side only spends what they perceive to be necessary to get the win. In the end they wind up just barely blocking each other, and its got nothing to do with what people would decide were they self informed.

 

[Yerda]

I'll be glad when it's over.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I've yet to see a monarch of any country who is above politics.

Well, it depends what is meant by politics. But monarchs can be above much partisan, party politics.

I'm also unsure how a person who is the monarch of 16 different geographically and culturally diverse sovereign nations could be an "effective symbol of the heritage and rooted identity" of any one of them (unless you mean "rooted" in the Australian sense, maybe).

To be honest, I'm not especially concerned with her role in any nation but England (despite being half-Australian and residing there temporarily), but I do think that in many of the Commonwealth nations she provides a symbol of their heritage in one form or other.

The legitimacy of government is derived from the consent of the governed. Monarchy attempts to throw this principle away... even though most monarchists at least pay lip-service to the idea (for instance, by trotting out survey results about public support for the monarchy).

I disagree that is where the legitimacy of government is derived from. I take the Aristotelian position that government is natural to man; it tends to emerge the moment his society advances to a certain size and level. Government should be good, free, and just. And it will need, to be so, to represent the interests of all individuals and groups within its territories, as far as possible. But consent, except in the broadest sense, is not necessary for a legitimate government, I would say. I do not worship King Numbers.

Famously, exactly what consent of the governed means is fraught and far from clear. Why, for example, should 50% +1 be considered the people? Why is this minority not just as much the people?

How are people to express their consent? Our systems, for example, seem to have quite a gap between where the people get their say and where the decisions are made. In Britain, even leaving aside the vast role of the EU and special interests, we are governed by those voted for by a majority (or even minority) of MPs, who are voted for once every five years by the largest amount of voters who happen to turn out on election day. Of course, more representation of the opinion of the people will tend to make government less efficient, which goes to show that our systems do not really operate on consent of the governed as some divine principle that must always be upheld.

And, are the people to be represented in their natural and voluntary groups and associations, or only as individuals only? Seeing as most people are immersed in such associations and get much of their mundane identity from them.

Our societies, all societies, are the product of low growth over generations. What we enjoy was painstakingly bequeathed to us by our ancestors - if we destroy it, it could not rebuilt in centuries - and what our posterity will enjoy is what we give them in inheritance. As Burke put it, "[Society] is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." So, why is consent of the governed simply to be a fleeting, momentary majority. It seems a bad way to govern, to me.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I just remember how cold-hearted she was when Princess Diana died. Princess Di was the only royal I liked.

I have nothing against Princess Diana, personally. But she was vastly overhyped. Her following was largely a part of celebratory culture, with the silliness and inauthentic-ness one would expect.

I think Peter Hitchens, in his The Abolition of Britain, was insightful in his use of two funerals, that of Churchill and that of Princess Diana, as landmarks to show how much Britain had changed in 30 years.

 

[oldbadger]

The 50-50 is a darn good indication that this is not really a vote based upon what people want at all. Like with the presidential elections here in the 'States, you get a 50-50 split

Although I haven't spoken with a single Scot (in Scotland) in over 20 years, I would guess that this vote is nothing..... absolutely nothing, like any vote that has been taken before.

It's so far beyond anything you might see in America as to be 'out of sight'. This isn't a short term election campaign, but a 'once and for all time' decision, so important that for the first time children can vote. Yes.... children of 16 can vote on the future of their land.

The US poll has not ever determined what currency will be used, whether nuclear bases will need to close, new passports for all, etc etc......... it is an all time life changing vote. And for the country to be showing a divide over this is very very sad. If at least 70% of the vote goes one way or t'other then at least Scotland can say that it made a strong decision.

 

[psychoslice]

I think all this king and queen stuff is out of date, its nothing but a circus.

 

[oldbadger]

I have nothing against Princess Diana, personally. But she was vastly overhyped. Her following was largely a part of celebratory culture, with the silliness and inauthentic-ness one would expect.

Overhyped? Yes. But..... that has always been our nature. You might be able to think of one or two people who are world famous celebrities, rich beyond anything Diana ever owned, front page news if they are seen in a restaurant..... because they are good singers. It's true, isn't it? :biglaugh:

Now...... Diana had more than that....... immeasurably more than that. It was not because she was beautiful, or because she was so 'simply honest', or because she was trusted on sight, or because she obviously cared about people in that beautifully 'young' way...... she had an X factor that caused the world to love her.

People don't do and feel 'things' because it makes sense..... People react in ways and for reasons that make the 'sciences' of psychology and psychiatry very very inexact... in other words we have no blooming idea about why we raise people up so.

I think Peter Hitchens, in his The Abolition of Britain, was insightful in his use of two funerals, that of Churchill and that of Princess Diana, as landmarks to show how much Britain had changed in 30 years.

I have not read this book. But it's an inexact comparison, methinks. Diana has happened before, because she had X factor and she loved....... Eva Peron might be a good example, but these adorations go back into history.

Churchill was respected, admired and adored for his unbelievable guts. Despite many many failures he came forward at the right time (when most would have hidden in shame?) to hold us together through the most dreadful adversity, when all around us had disappeared. Unbelievable guts.

We are the same people now as we have always been, we're just reacting to the new environs all around us.......

 

[Shuttlecraft]

As an Englishman I couldn't care less if Scotland votes for independence, it's no skin off our nose.
It's the jocks living in England who I'll feel sorry for, because they'll be classed as "immigrants" and the english will feel colder towards them for coming here taking our jobs, houses and welfare, and will start telling them to go back to Scotland..