The Case for Scottish Independence

[clarkjordan12345 108]

A Quick bit of history and information before we get started:

Scotland is a nation on the fringes of Europe. It is a remember of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland occupying the top part of the island of Great Britain.

Full Name: Kingdom of Scotland

Population: (2010 census) 5.2 million

Capital: Edinburgh (454,280)

Other Major Cities: Glasgow (1,750,000), Adberdeen (183,030) and Dundee (142,070)

GDP: £140 Billion

A timeline for those of you who don't know much about Scotland (all events relevant to independence):

1124: David I becomes king and introduces the feudal system of landholding to much of Scotland.

1174: William I signs the Treaty of Falaise in which he swears allegiance to Henry II of England.

1292: Edward I of England intervenes in Scottish affairs and grants the Scottish throne to John Balliol.

1297: Andrew de Moravia and William Wallace lead the Scots to victory over England at Stirling Bridge.

1314: Robert the Bruce defeats the English at Bannockburn.

1320: Nobles assert Scottish independence in the Declaration of Arbroath.

1328: Treaty of Northampton. England recognizes Scottish independence.

1402: English defeat Scots in the Battle of Nesbit Moor and the Battle of Humbleton Hill.

1513: James IV and thousands of Scots are killed at Flodden.

1561: Mary, Queen of Scots returns from France.

1568: Mary, Queen of Scots flees to England following the defeat of her army at the Battle of Langside.

1587: Mary is beheaded by the order of Queen Elizabeth I of England.

1603: The Union of the Crowns: James VI of Scotland becomes James I of England.

1651–1660: Scotland incorporated into the English Commonwealth and Protectorate.

1660: The monarchy is restored and Scotland resumes its status as a separate kingdom.

1689: Jacobite highlanders defeats army of William III at Killiecrankie, but are halted at Dunkeld.

1707: The Union of the Parliaments: the Acts of Union are passed by both the Scottish and English parliaments.

1715: First Jacobite rising.

1934: Scottish National Party founded. (This is where the ball starts rolling now)

1945: First Scottish Nationalist MP is elected in the Motherwell By-Election (Dr Robert McIntyre) but the seat is lost in the General Election 3 months later. sad face.

1967: First proper SNP victory as Winnie Ewing claims the labour stronghold of Hamilton (South of Glasgow) in a by-election.

1979: Referendum to create a Scottish Assembly fails to meet the required majority.

1997: Newly elected Labour UK Government under the leadership of Scots-born Prime Minister Tony Blair legislates for a referendum on a devolved Scottish Parliament which is passed by a large majority.

1999: A Scottish Parliament sits for the first time in 272 years. Donald Dewar of the Scottish Labour Party elected as First Minister and forms Scottish Executive in conation with the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

2004: Opening of the new Scottish Parliament Building.

2007: The Scottish National Party become the largest party in the Scottish Parliament and forms a minority government.

2011: The Scottish National Party under Alex Salmond gain an overall majority of the Scottish Parliament allowing us oops, I mean, them to hold a referendum (a question asked to and voted on by the people)on Scottish independence.

And this is where we are now. Within the next few years the question will be asked to the people of Scotland: Do you want independence? Aye or Naw?

I will now present a few arguments for independence, you can add to them or oppose them.

- An independent Scotland would be able to control it's economy better.

- Revenue from North Sea oil production currently stands at £22,831 a MINUTE (not including gas).

- Scotland should be the 6th richest country in the world (per head) due to it's natural resources, however over 500,000 children (me included if we're talking under 18s) are in dire poverty. Don't even bother contradicting me on this one because I know all about it.

- Both Scottish and English (especially English) identity have suffered greatly due to the union. British identity has hardly anything to do with either Scottish or English identity.

- Scotland is persistently called a "Subsidy Junkie" due to it's supposed "heavy" reliance on Westminster. However, this is just a lie by unionists to scare the people of Scotland into voting no. Scotland actually contributes roughly £3.5 billion more than it takes out of the union. This comes from our oil and gas, renewable energy, manufacturing, tax etc revenue. However government spending is higher in Scotland (causing unionists to call us the "subsidy junkies") however when you compare the two, it works out just about even.

- The British government use Scotland as a dump for all it's dirty business. Nuclear waste is dumped all over the place and the UK's nuclear deterrent is dumped on the river clyde. The vast majority of Scottish people do not want Nuclear Weapons in their back yard.

There are many many more arguments for and against, but I'd rather let other people cover them. Thanks for reading and please respond!

[Meg 368]

. . .

1707: The Union of the Parliaments: the Acts of Union are passed by both the Scottish and English parliaments.

. . .

- Both Scottish and English (especially English) identity have suffered greatly due to the union. British identity has hardly anything to do with either Scottish or English identity.

As one who doesn't live in the area, I recognize that my opinion here is irrelevant. But I do have a few questions.

The Union of the Parliaments happened over 300 years ago and both the Scottish and English identities have suffered greatly since that time?

I know this is very American of me but 300 years is a long time. Of course their identities are different then they were in 1707. But how have they "suffered"?

On the other issues, I do not know the other version of the statistics (there are always at least two versions of statistics) but it does sound like Scotland is being "dumped on".

Scotland actually contributes roughly £3.5 billion more than it takes out of the union.

The actual data behind that statement would probably be the most convincing argument.

It would be difficult, though, considering the various combined resources. The military, for instance.

and if Scotland becomes independent of the UK, would it still be part of the EU?

Just thinking out loud here . . .

[clarkjordan12345 108]

Well, there have been a lot of recent developments in both sets of identities since then ofcourse and as a result of the union these changes have gone unnoticed. When ever I hear people abroad talking about the United Kingdom, they call it England. It's not just Scotland that suffers though, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland all have their identities smothered by the union.

On the issue of military. Scotland would keep her existing regiments (of which she has some of the best trained personell in the world), the navy, airforce and army would all be split up in accordance with Scotland's size, population, needs etc remember, our tax has paid for the military too.

And yes, the SNP feel very strongly about being part of the EU, and have even suggested joining the Eurozone. THey have aknowledged that this would not be a good idea at the moment, but in the future it is a good idea.

[2farnorth 26]

Just no.

Alex Salmond seems to want tons of wind farms everywhere, meaning where I live, there are hundreds of them.

Also, what about the major things, like upgrading the A9 from Perth to Inverness. That is going nowhere, but millions of pounds have gone into the black hole known as Edinburgh trams, and it won't even be completed until 2014.

I would rather stay on the pound, rather than the euro, which I think might not survive this crisis.

Also, what about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, in 2009, when he had three months to live.Today, he is still alive. Do we really want terrorists going free in the 21st century.

Overall, what would independence do for me, up in the middle of nowhere. Any wave power will benefit the northern isles, whilst all I will get is massive wind turbines. Westminster may have put a nuclear plant up here, but said nuclear plant is what keeps the local economy running. They say wind farms give so many jobs, but none are permanent, and the contractors are from somewhere at the other end of the country. A million wind farms will never replace all the jobs from the nuclear plant, which is now decommissioning, chances are never to be replaced, job-wise.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An opinion and comment from a commonwealth cousin in Canada.

At the time of the Act of Union, I seem to recall that it was a kind of forced putt. The Scots Parliament has boxed itself into a corner.

I wonder whether Scotland is interested in membership in the Commonwealth of Nations?

For the Jacobins, I remind you that Charles Stewart was a complete bust. Raised in the French Court, and totally decadent, he brought you the '45, and let's not forget it. The Skye Boat Song is a nice melody, but let's forget the lyrics. So what will Scotland do for a head of state?

The Balkanization of the United Kingdom would not necessarily be a good thing for trade. Maybe everyone should remember that it was mostly Scots who created the advances of the Industrial Revolution.

I also seem to recall that Scottish statesmanship at the time of Rob Roy was rather one of treachery. Who was it that turned William Wallace over to the English, hmmm?

Now that there is some real wealth within the grasp of the Scots, do we remember the adage: "If a wee Scot gi' ye a giftie, glam it afore he remembers he's thrifty"?

I also remember that Scotland was often under the very strong influence of France. Do you think you might resurrect these old alliances? The King of France is a businessman selling real estate the last time I looked. He was a member of my power squadron. Recently, a lot of Scots blood was spread on the fields of France.

Then there is the Scottish Play. One wonders if an independent Scotland is really ready to live down its bad propaganda?

Of course you will want back the Stone of Scone?

So, little birdies, you need to look at the new branch carefully before you leap. Has anyone calculated what it will cost the Scottish (dare I say) Crown to have all the appurtenances of a fully independent state? Ask some of us who are independent and see what it is like to pay completely for your own establishment.

[clarkjordan12345 108]

2farnorth: Well I thought that people from the north were even more passionate than us southerners. I love all of my country But you have to remember, he doesn't just want the wind farms in the North. They will be everywhere. I can see the one in Ardrossan from my house and tbh it really does improve the landscape. But I suppose that's just my opinion. He is also planning on fabrication plants for the windmills. Who's to say that they wont be around your neck of the woods? The North has some of the most prominent members of the Scottish Parliament. You are well represented and I'm sure that jobs will be brought to the area.

A Nonny Moose: As a Canadian, your opinion is very much valued! And yes, our country was dragged kicking and screaming into the union.

We are very much interested in the commonwealth, in fact, we will keep the queen as our head of state.

As for a leader, Alex Salmond would be PM or FM or whatever the title would be as he is the elected leader of the elected majority party in the parliament.

As for trade. Well I don't see how anyone would be worse off. We would even have better intra-British Isles trade.

"If a wee Scot gi' ye a giftie, glam it afore he remembers he's thrifty" I have to write that down!

Yes, we still have a very close relationship with France even to this day. There are lots of links between us. Oh, and did you know that 25% of British soldiers who died in WW2 were Scottish, even though Scotland only had 11% of the population? That says something, right?

Bad propoganda? like the fact that we are the fattest nation in Europe? lol We get on fine just now, right/

The Stone of Scone was returned to Edinburgh Castle ages ago, it might be a fake though xD

And finally, yes we will be able to float our own boat. We are forecast to be the 6th richest nation in the world after Qatar, Brunei, Norway, Singapore, and Liechtenstein

[ee99 150]

Well as a Englishman i am undecided. So heres what i'm thinking:

1) I don't really care if Scotland leave the UK it won't effect me or anyone i know massively.

2) The oil is running out so Scotlands contributions to the union will be less

3) I was lead to believe scotland COULD be one of the richest countries on the world. The question was bluntly answered here

4) Scotland will never be fully independent as its transport inter links with England to much.

5) It'll effect the Scottish more.

I not sure if all my facts are right but to be honest i don't really care if they leave the uk

  Edited November 5, 2011 by ee99  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Bad propaganda: The Scottish Play is Macbeth. Not a great advertisement for Scots loyalty and fealty, eh? I was being facetious and you missed it.

You might be interested to know that although we started in the early 1600's as a French colony with the Sieur de ... as the first governor general, we became more or less British in 1755 when Wolfe and Montcalm killed each other in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham outside Quebec City. When a Quebecois says "Je me souviens" that is what he is remembering. This is also called "the conquest" if you live in Quebec. So it has been nearly 300 years for them. They have tried to get away from TROC (The Rest Of Canada) through three or four referendums all of which failed. They have yet to agree to the new constitution act of 1987 which finally cut the apron strings to Westminster.

We haven't been a real independent country for very long. 1987 to now is only 24 years, but the number of fights over the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms is keeping our Supreme Court busy. We are supposed to be officially bilingual, but only New Brunswick really is, and this is mentioned in the Charter.

We are having a flap now because the newly appointed Auditor General is Anglophone only (at the moment). The Liberals got up en masse and walked out of the House of Commons and the NDP (socialists) voted against the appointment in a bloc. Much good it did them, the Conservatives have a nice, shiny, new majority, and it shows. We, the electorate, got sick of minority governments and the same old bull roar.

In the last election we had a sea change. The "Natural Ruling Party", the Liberals (center left) got chucked and went from over 100 seats to 30. They were the official opposition in the last Parliament. The Bloc Quebecois (separatist) got reduced to a rump (this tail used to be able to wag the dog) and the Conservatives got a majority. The NDP (center, but quite left) got most of the seats in Quebec in place of the Bloc, and this made them the Official Opposition for the first time. We are all waiting to see how this works. Its been a generation since we had a majority government. To top it all off, the extremely charismatic leader of the NDP, known to be a straight shooter, died of cancer before the first meeting of the new House. Much angst, and a State Funeral, which we don't normally do for leaders of the opposition. (If there had not been a State Funeral there might have been fighting in the streets.) Canadians can get quite excited occasionally. Oh, I almost forgot: The Green Party, after many years of trying, managed to get a seat in the House for their leader. A nice lady.

Getting back to independence for Scotland: Why not? Are you going to have a referendum on it? You most certainly should. You should also get Westminster to agree that if you get 50% plus 1, that is sufficient. That's the way the Quebec ones run. Last time they got 50% - a few and nearly split the country. I think if they tried to leave it would be the devil to pay and no pitch hot. The Yanks don't want a Francophone country on their doorstep with control of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

So you'd never heard my little thrift expression? I got it from an immigrant Scot.

I only have one question with tongue in cheek and that is: What will all those stodgy Englishmen do for innovation if the Scots pick up their sporrans and go home?

[clarkjordan12345 108]

Ee99: ok, I'll answer all your points in order (I'd like to point out that I love English people, I'm not bitter xD):

1. That is a view held by many English people. I understand that you wouldn't really feel much of a change.

2. As I said in chat, it has been proven that at the current rate of extraction, there will still be oil production in Scotland until at least 2040.

3. Of course Scotland is not one of the richest countries in the world. It's one of the poorest in Western Europe. However, we are forecasted to become 6th richest in the world if we become independent.

4. That is true. We don't want to shut the door on England! We just want to bring the xbox into our room! :L

5. It will affect us more in a good way, yes

a Nonny Moose Wow, thanks for the effort that you put into that post.

But yeah, it was rather silly of me to miss the link there. I didn't really pay attention to it when we did it in school. I'm not a Shakespeare person tbh.

Yes we are going to have a referendum during the current parliament, probably in 2014 (the year that Glasgow holds the Commonwealth Games). The referendum will include the big question, along with the question of the alternative "independence lite" or "devolution max" in which we don't chose full independence, but we recieve a hell of a lot more powers from Westminster like control over taxes and control over the military. But why not just go the whole way? That idea of 51% sounds interesting, you should talk to Mr Salmond xD And do you blame the Yanks? xD

I seem to recall it a little bit, but that's definitely the first time I've heard it in a long time.

And an immigrant Scot in Canada? lol, I hear the place is over run with them xD

and finally, well they'll still get it, but it will become an export and not a gift anymore

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Good luck with your referendum. Not 51% but 50%+1 vote. This is important. 50.00001% would do the trick.

Be sure you run the scenarios properly for disentangling. The Quebecois are so emotional that I am sure they haven't done all the homework. For example, what will they do when all the non-Francophone companies that have not already moved to Toronto, do so? What about the Royal Twenty-second Regiment (Le Vingt-Deuxième Régiment) that is currently domiciled in the Citadel in Quebec City? It gets a federal paycheck and is loyal to Canada.

As an example in your case, what are you going to do about titles granted by the English Crown such as the Duchy of Edinburgh? If the scuttlebutt is right, that title will go to Prince Harry when Philip dies. And what of Balmoral? It is in Scotland, isn't it? You realize the Queen is half-Scottish by descent from the Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mum) who was resident at Glamis with her family when she was younger. (Now, this has a Macbeth connection, too!) Will you continue to supply the Queen's piper? Besides the big sovereignty issues, there is all this fiddly little detail, you see.

In reply to the sporran issue, remember the battle dress of the Scots at Culloden. If you don't know, they wore their birthday suits to avoid contamination of any wounds. It was the way the Scots always went into battle. I suppose you could ask the English to bend over.

And yes, I have read a lot of Scots history. I am a bit of a history buff, and I am old enough to be your grandfather.

[clarkjordan12345 108]

Oh yeah, that's how it's going to work. Even a majority of one vote will decide the outcome.

You have to remember though, that our culture is really similar to that of the rest of the UK so companies wouldn't just up sticks and run for the border. I'm sure most companies would love the idea of helping to build our country into an even better place.

I'm sure that the Royal Family will be last on the list of important things to look at. I'm sure that the queen has at least one residence in Canada. Am I right? She would still probably spend a lot of time at Balmoral.

Lol, I didn't know e did that. I wont be joining the army! xD

You are a very intelligent individual then. Your responses are very in-depth! Thanks.

[joelyboy911 134]

Well, I am a New Zealander, a lover of the British Empire, and a skeptic of seperatist movements.

I'd like to discuss your assertion that Scotland could be the 6th richest country on earth. This is interesting, as I presume this argument is perpetuated in order to convince people of low socio-economic groups that they will be better off when Scotland is seperate from England. Well, it can hardly be true. In the oil-rich countries you mentioned, drilling of oil is controlled by wealthy royal families, which has caused marked inequality in those regions. Norway is a possible exception, however their wealth is derived from other sources than oil alone. Drilling on the Brent oilfield (which is reaching its twilight years anyway) is controlled by Shell (Royal Dutch Shell, to be precise) so most of the economic benefit from the drilling does not flow to people in Scotland or the UK at all. Yes, there are license fees to be gained, but these are not a long-term source of income. And given that the London government is really holding all the cards here, they really aren't at any obligation to hand over the oilfields to the Scots at all, are they? (Having reflected on this, there are probably international laws on Exclusive Economic Zones that apply - but it doesn't change the fact that the UK central govt is holding all the cards.)

You mention that there are 500,000 children living in poverty - statistics similar to this are bandied about in New Zealand all the time too. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, I understand life is harder, but it is not real poverty. Poverty in my eyes is subsistence, sickness and starvation. Ie. trying to scrape a living out of the barren earth. We don't have that in the Western World, where there is State Welfare, universal education, and public health. Everyone has opportunity. Unlike some of those wealthy countries you mentioned, another reason to not want to be like them. The fact is that the number of children in poverty is a red herring to this argument, as they are party to the same Social Security availability as people in the rest of the UK. I doubt that, in the long term, Scotland would any better take care of its vulnerable than does Britain now. They only way they can (sustainably) is by increasing tax, which would result in a mass exodus of business back to England.

I also really don't think that 50% +1 should be sufficient to decide such a major issue. I think 2/3 or 3/4 is more appropriate for this sort of forever decision. The vast majority of Scots need to agree for it to be a sustainable decision. I also suspect, from what I know of the Scots, that there would be a big regional component in the vote, what happens when all the Highlanders but none of the Borders want to secede? These are all factors that should be considered. 300 years is a hell of a long time. That's a very new-world perspective, I know, but that's twice the length of New Zealand's entire history. Remember that James I of England was first James VI of Scotland - in a way, the Scots started the whole thing!

One thing I do think about the UK is that it would be better if it were restructured. The system is complicated and a bit messy. I think England should be given a devolved parliament, so that Westminster functions as a federal government with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland function as states of a union. I'm probably oversimplifying it, but I understand that Westminster makes laws that only apply to England (those that are decided elsewhere by the devolved bodies) but that members from the other parts of the Union are allowed to vote. I know that's not really relevant to Scottish independence, but perhaps if the countries of the UK had a more matching position, it would be fairer.

I think it is a decision for the people, but don't take it lightly. Having said all that, if the people of Scotland (and it does have to be a big majority) really care about this, I hope Westminster will allow it. Think it through objectively, and be prepared to face the wild world alone, if that's the decision you take.

  Edited November 6, 2011 by joelyboy911  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Some good points.

Let me simplify a little. Instead of Scottish independence, suppose the whole business is reformed. What if you took the approach we have taken in Canada. While the entire UK could be dropped into Lake superior, remember what we have. A set of ten provinces and three territories (not enough population for a province) stitched together by a federal government. Each province has its own legislature. We also have a huge hunk of land 12,000 Km from east to west and bounded by three oceans. Also, if you think the north of Scotland is cold you at least don't have polar bears. For a close reference, ask your friends in Norway.

Now, suppose we agree that external matters and overall things like the Criminal Code (you need one) are the purview of Westminster, while a separate English parliament looks after everything else that pertains to England and is located someplace else, not necessarily even in London. Now Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and perhaps even the Channel Islands get their own legislatures with the same powers as the English Parliament. This gives you the Federation of the United Kingdom with a lot more local control.

You should take a look at our Constitution Act. However, a big chunk of our constitution consists of the Criminal Code of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Theoretically, the Criminal Code is not properly a part of the Constitution, but I consider it essential.

Notice the dates on these documents. We really didn't have a Constitution until 1982 and we imported the Queen especially to sign it because we thought it was important. A modern Magna Carta. Quebec has never ratified it, much to our annoyance.

Because each of the members of my proposed federation are effectively sovereign states, with the exception of England you will need a formal head of state in the person of a Governor General, which is what we and our Kiwi friends have. In our case each province also has a Lieutenant Governor. Somebody close has to assent to the bills that pass the parliament. Our provincial legislatures are unicameral.

As side note: The Queen does not have an official residence in Canada unless you count the Vice-Regal Rideau Hall in Ottawa. It is actually the residence of the Governor General, and has a few spare bedrooms. At one point, Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) had a ranch in Alberta in his own right, but this has since been sold. We have no royal lands, only some government establishments. The only other official residences in Canada are those of the Lieutenants Governor, the Prime Minister's residence (24 Sussex Drive) and the residence of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Stornaway). The titles for the whole works resides in the federal government. You in Scotland are perhaps fortunate to have the Queen's Balmoral providing some local employment. Royal properties are good for the economy.

  Edited November 6, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[2farnorth 26]

I am at the very far north of Scotland. Not Perth, not Aberdeen, not even Inverness, Inverness is 100 miles SOUTH of where I am and the central belt is a 5 hour drive away, at the least. The main road south is very long, twisty, and narrow, so why put a fabrication plant up here? At one point, there is a very steep valley, which the road goes down at a gradient of 13%, before going up the other side at 13% again with a tight hairpin in the middle of that climb. Try getting a long vehicle around that. A railway line does come up here, but again, it is very long and twisty. There is a pretty large port, but why export loads out when you can import very little in. I like Scotland very much, but I feel the far north will be practically abandoned if we become independent .

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am at the very far north of Scotland. Not Perth, not Aberdeen, not even Inverness, Inverness is 100 miles SOUTH of where I am and the central belt is a 5 hour drive away, at the least. The main road south is very long, twisty, and narrow, so why put a fabrication plant up here? At one point, there is a very steep valley, which the road goes down at a gradient of 13%, before going up the other side at 13% again with a tight hairpin in the middle of that climb. Try getting a long vehicle around that. A railway line does come up here, but again, it is very long and twisty. There is a pretty large port, but why export loads out when you can import very little in. I like Scotland very much, but I feel the far north will be practically abandoned if we become independent .

So where are you? Thurso? Wick?

[2farnorth 26]

Near Thurso.

[sneakeypete 16]

While i guess i have no way to say "oh well you should just stick with the UK" i do have to ask, if you split up for economic reasons... what's to stop someone then saying "well xx clan on the east coast used to be independent of the rest of the kingdom, our identity is being suppressed, and we're also being mooched off (oil), lets make our own country too!". and so on?

[clarkjordan12345 108]

Just to let you all know, I've created a blog on the subject on Tumblr. If you're interested I'd really appreciate if you followed it. http://jordanfrew1994.tumblr.com/

as to your point Sneakypete it is a good one! However, we have a very strong identity within the country and I doubt it would get to that stage.

[AkemiAzula 280]

From the OP's arguments and what I know of the matter, I would say cautiously that (as an English man in England mind you) I would have nothing against Scottish independence. (nor that of England and the general breaking up of the 'Union' if said independence were to be gained). 

 

I read The Times and an opinion poll seemed to show there was still a majority supporting remaining within the Union. However if England (sorry the UK) leaves the EU they might change their opinion somewhat. I voted Conservative in this election and while I don't believe Farage to be a fruitcake loonie, and while I oppose the actions of those Scots who attacked him for being a racist and telling him to return to England (...) I am a believer tentatively in a Northern European Union with Germany and the more successful nations, and leaving the Meds to themselves.

 

However putting that aside my main point is that if we leave the EU then independence would seem a good idea for all parties in the Union. As to the Irish question that is another kettle of fish.

 

I am also aware from the paper that the Scottish favour the EU more than us down south in England, but this is hardly a purely economic matter.

 

"We are very much interested in the commonwealth, in fact, we will keep the queen as our head of state."

 

That's a nice civilized sentiment. Good to see you are of the reasonable independence sort. I think the Commonwealth with England as an equal member would be a good idea to retain.

 

A possibly stupid idea - a Commonwealth Euro? A Commonwealth currency? Probably stupid. Make your own currency. Much more aesthetically pleasing. The Euro looks awful. We could call ours the English Pound and yours the Scottish Pound or whatever. 

 

The Queen could be retitled Queen of England or Queen of the Commonwealth or QOE and Leader of the Commonwealth.  If she dropped England and became QOTC she would lose the 'Brittania Rules the Waves' tinge abroad and might appeal to people in Canada and Australia etc more?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In this old thread, I wonder if I smell a resurgence of English republicanism?

 

There is no reason why the present Queen (or King) should not assume the Scottish titles and continue with the Scots nobility.  Considering the history, especially the '45, perhaps it would be a good idea to ban the Skye Boat Song. 

 

Scots may have long memories, but think of all that Scottish architecture in London.  Wouldn't have happened without English money, nor would the railway have been so quickly developed even though it was invented in Scotland. 

 

The whole United Kingdom has been a great synergy, and a few oil wells is not really a good reason to break up this success.  It is not really broken, so why fix it?: