So, no share of national debt for an independent Scotland then..

bideyinn

So you reject what others have asserted because 1. you've never seen anything that you recognise as racism and because some of your best friends are English.

Golly .

I hope I wasn't too long-winded :)

Thank you for that excellent information Toadinthehole, that teaches me for "guessing" within a heated debate, I should know better.

I think independence in Scotland will be good for both Scottish and English, (or rUK).

Nuclear subs are weapons of mass destruction ( which is what I said). I'm not sure that they protect me but I am sure that they make my part of the world a target in any nuclear attack. I didn't say that a positive stance on these subs is anti Scottish but it would be a benefit of independence to get rid of them.

I don't recognise these views of Scotland, that's not because I'm blinkered, I've just never come across any real rascism against English people. A great many of the English people I know that live here are voting yes. Part of my family are English, With English accents, living here and they don't recognise it either. I'm sure rascism must happen but I don't think its widespread nor the cultural norm.
A personal attack and accusation of casual rascism was most definitely made. It simply isn't true.

Isitmebut

Oliver Cromwell's reforms were pretty much all overturned after the Restoration in 1660. If you read about how Charles II conducted his government, you will see he tried to do without Parliament as much much as he could, and was in fact able to do this in the latter part of his reign by being in the pay of Louis XIV of France.

The political event that established our current arrangements was the Glorious Revolution of 1688. After Charles' brother James II was turfed out, his replacement William of Orange gave royal assent to the Bill of Rights, which established Parliamentary supremacy for good. The Glorious Revolution isn't really celebrated, but it is perhaps Britain's most important constitutional moment.

And yes I know that the Bill of Rights 1688 is English parliament legislation, but its application post 1707 has been across the board.

Queen Victoria refused assent to some colonial legislation (this was in the very early days before the power was delegated to governors-general as it is now).

But that aside, I agree with theHammaconda. Royal assent is the last step in the process by which Parliament enacts law. While the Queen may legally refuse assent, there is a very strong convention that she will not do this. Her refusal in the face of Parliament would cause a constitutional crisis, possibly leading to the abolition of the monarchy.

As I expect people have gathered, a Yes win in the referendum would not cause Scotland to be independent. The Yes vote would have no significance in law at all. In order to be independent, the Westminster parliament would hve to enact legislation providing for Scotland's independence.

I recall Salmond and Sturgeon et al saying that the Scottish Parliament had the power to enact legislation providing for the referendum. Another SNP figure (Ewing?) has said the current Scottish parliament is a revival of the pre-1707 parliament. This is all bollocks. Had the Scottish Parliament been allowed to conduct the referendum under its own purported powers, I wonder if (following a Yes vote) its SNP members would have tried to provide for independence under its own powers. Probably.

TheHammaconda Thu 20-Feb-14 14:01:50
The Monarch would still have to give Royal Assent. The last time assent was refused was in 1708 (Queen Anne, so after Cromwell). I don't think Parliament voted on this so there can't have been consent.

There's an established convention that requires the consent of involved royal parties before a bill is put to MPs. As Scottish independence would affect the Queen's hereditary revenues wouldn't any bill presented to Parliament need her consent?

Even if Queen Anne did this, it doesn't mean the current Queen has the power regardless of whether this is a legal possibility.

The monarch has become increasingly a figurehead since the end of Queen Victoria's reign. What is legally possible is different to what is actually possible in 2014 in a democratic framework. Using powers like this would be more likely to cause a constitutional crisis in the sense that it would create a backlash against the monarch and the striping of even the most basic of her powers. She would be extremely unwise to do this and go against something that have been voted for even if it was to her own detriment.

bideyinn

Because you said that my view about Scotland was because i was Scottish? You made a personal statement I think.

Do you live in Scotland? I do and as I said before I don't recognise my country on this thread.

The point I was making was that you wouldn't.

Scotland isn't perfect by any means but it is full of decent, hard working people who welcome immigrants and are generally tolerant of others.

Unless they're English.

I think we deserve to make our own minds up about how best to govern our nation without being patronised, chided and subjected to personal remarks.

Yes, if only the debate was grown-up and mature, how much better it would be. We wouldn't have Salmond lying about joining the EU and Euro, for example.

I don't want nuclear subs here and never have. It's not childish, it's my view. We don't need them.

No, you wrote 'WMDs'. That isn't the same as nuclear subs. The world might not 'need' nukes, but they're out there and the UK has them as a deterrent. You've lived under the shield of that deterrent all your life.

I googled the following and according to Wiki;
"A referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country will take place on Thursday 18 September 2014.[1]

Following an agreement between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government,[2] the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, setting out the arrangements for this referendum, was put forward on 21 March 2013,[3] passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14 November 2013 and received Royal Assent on 17 December 2013[4][5]

The question to be asked in the referendum will be "Should Scotland be an independent country?" as recommended by the Electoral Commission."

We could argue the Queen could NOW say that as her palaces are falling apart she NOW can't afford to lose Scotland and do a runner (with the Corgi's close behind) rather than sign, but I'll leave that speculation to others.

The Monarch would still have to give Royal Assent. The last time assent was refused was in 1708 (Queen Anne, so after Cromwell). I don't think Parliament voted on this so there can't have been consent.

There's an established convention that requires the consent of involved royal parties before a bill is put to MPs. As Scottish independence would affect the Queen's hereditary revenues wouldn't any bill presented to Parliament need her consent?

Legalalien…I’m guessing Olly Cromwell and others took away any option of monarch veto’s on legislation they don’t like, even on such an important constitutional issue such as this. And as the queen would have signed off on the Scottish Referendum, via the people’s parliament, giving power to the people of Scotland to decide, democratically the queen would not have a constitutional leg to stand on trying to block it now. IMHO.

Not sure if this is the place for it, but a quick constitutional question. Presumably independence has to be effected by an act of the UK Parliament, to which the queen gives assent in accordance with constitutional convention. Assume that independence is clearly a "good thing" for Scotland (accepting figures that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy ); conversely it ought to be a "bad thing" for everyone else. If all the major UK political parties think this, then how can the Queen justify assent to something that's bad for most of her subjects? Or for that matter how can the government recommend it?

Taking a counterfactual, if Scotland were a major drain on the UK economy and the rUK MPs decided to vote to kick Scotland out of the UK, I can see it would be a controversial situation....

(Note: I am a kiwi living in London with mixed Scots, Welsh, Irish and English ancestry if it makes any difference. And apologies for ignorance, I have only just started looking at the detail of the debate....)

bideyinn

I might have made the point a bit less strongly, but I think you are being oversensitive. No one accused you of racism.

You say that you don't recognise the way Scotland is being portrayed on this thread, and you have at least implied that I am making stuff up.

I'm afraid it reminds me of an incident not long after I arrived in Scotland. There was some rather self-congratulatory media comment about how Scotland didn't suffer from issues of racism, unlike a particular country to the immediate south. A couple of days later, an Asian man was beaten up in Kelvingrove Park in what was clearly a racially motivated attack. I remember the a senior policeman saying "Scots don't do this".

A few years later, some Scottish football fans murdered a man in France. Craig Brown described them as "not true Scotland fans". It was a very revealing, albeit inadvertant, use of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Insisting on community standards is fine, but it can morph into a form of wilful blindness.

On this thread, a number of people have stated their belief that anti-English racism is a part of Scottish life and culture, and have given reasons for their belief. Your response appears to be that you "don't recognise it". Unfortunately, that is a common reply, and does provide grounds for stating that your own background blinds you to it.

As for nuclear subs: could you explain why you think flatpackhamster's remarks were anti-Scottish as opposed to merely being pro-nuclear?

Because you said that my view about Scotland was because i was Scottish? You made a personal statement I think.

Do you live in Scotland? I do and as I said before I don't recognise my country on this thread. Scotland isn't perfect by any means but it is full of decent, hard working people who welcome immigrants and are generally tolerant of others. I think we deserve to make our own minds up about how best to govern our nation without being patronised, chided and subjected to personal remarks.

I don't want nuclear subs here and never have. It's not childish, it's my view. We don't need them.

Sorry wrong thread. Will have it deleted.

I must say that I don't recognize the Scotland being portrayed in this thread? Stand offs with Ned's in Glasgow? Surely a stereotype

Are you suggesting that I'm making this stuff up?

That's very insulting and not actually true. I am not rascist to English people (or any other nationality) but you say that because I am Scottish I am rascist?! Nice

I don't want nuclear subs because they are weapons of mass destruction. I hope the rUK finds somewhere else to put them. I don't personally care about the jobs.

Toad hopefully there will be no rUK sub's remaining in Scotland after independence.

I was actually being ironic saying that I, nor the rest of the Scottish nation,understood the GERS figures, was feelings bit patronised.

I must say that I don't recognize the Scotland being portrayed in this thread? Stand offs with Ned's in Glasgow? Surely a stereotype

What I find disturbing about the debate is the Yes campaign's attempt to dumb the debate down into name calling about the English government. I suppose that the calculation is that the more emotive they can get people feeling the more likely they are to vote Yes. As has been noted before, calls to patriotism are the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The latest example of this was Salmond's use of the term 'The George Tax' when talking about transaction costs if Scotland had its own currency. All 3 major UK political parties have stated that they would not have a currency union with iScotland - so why call it the George Tax? IMO it is because Osborne represents something that many Scots (and English as well) detest - the class system. I was half expecting Salmond to label Barroso as an English Tory after his latest intervention!

The No campaign is raising important and very real issues that an iScotland will have to face - to dismiss them with petty insults and accusations of bullying really does the Yes campaign no credit at all. On a personal note, I have little truck with nationalism in any form and the Yes campaign is one manifestation of nationalist sentiment. Generally nationalism always appeals to base instinct more than reason and is by its nature exclusive rather than inclusive.

Sorry, one more thing.

Hmm. Personally, I'm finding the vast bulk of the nationalism is coming from the No side. The Yes side isn't saying vote for independence because you're Scottish and that's great, but the No side is firmly and strongly saying vote for the union because you're British and that's great.

Really? Because that's not the arguments I'm reading in the papers. Rather, the No campaign has - quite reasonably, one would have thought - concentrated on the dangers of independence and how it might make Scotland worse off.

If those points are made on a reasonable basis, it is a thoroughly illegitimate debating tactic to label it "scaremongering".

Just to add that Scotland is not presently a net contributor to the UK. No region is. And as you note, while the FT says Scotland would presently have a higher GDP than France, that remark has widely been reported to mean it would continue to be higher. It has been pretty widely pointed out that Scotland's wealth would, at present, depend substantially on North Sea oil receipts.

Personally I think this (as with the currency and the EU) is besides the point. Independence isn't really about economics but national identity, no matter how the debate is framed.