Scottish Vote: What happens to the Union Flag if?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by London Boy

Mostly the cash went to the welfare state and to pay off the national debt that has been hanging around since WW2 and beyond.

You have to add eastern England to the mix. I lived for a while in the Danelaw, except is wasn't called that by then of course. But lots of place names retain their Nordic roots, for example.

That's why we shouldn't be too upset about William the Bastard, despite his invasion in 1066 and the wasting of the North. At least he wasn't French, he was also Norse. Your lot got everywhere...

---

My wife family traces back to Hrolfgangir, first Duke of Normandy, via knights in the service of the Seigneur of Sark and an uncle of William. She reckons she has a better claim to the British throne than Betty the German and her crew of usurpers. She is now wondering if she will have a claim to be Queen of Scots if the referendum votes in favour of separation.

I gather from historians writing that it was not wise to refer to Uncle Willy as "The Bastard" in his hearing. Consequences were swift and nasty. Taught his son well. William Second Rufus was regarded by contemporary scribes as being "excessively cruel", even by the standards of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Scotland's population isn't much bigger than Sydney's. I'm pretty sure Scotland produces a decent income which could support five million Scots to a reasonable standard of living if it wasn't being siphoned off to London and not coming back.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

---

the numbers do not agree, but what you have written here is the STD pro Yes line.
by siphoned of i guess you mean they pay taxes. ok they stop paying tax's to the poms, but they still have to fix there roads, build a new democracy. and there income is not that great.

maybe over time they could build an economy, but who nis going to pay the dole for them in the mean time?

and remember non of this is sorted yet, if the vote is YES then they will have to sit down with the pommy government and cut a deal. and that is not going to be an easy thing. then an application to join the EU. etc not so simple and they are doing this on a vote for a better std of living when they can not support there current std of living atm.

you often read that there economy would be better if the poms didn't stop them. how what are the poms stopping them?

The fact that the Cameron government is desperately trying to bribe them to vote No by proposing to return more of Scottish taxes to Scotland suggests what has always been true historically - the English have always diverted lots of Scottish revenue on a one-way trip to London. Five million Scots should be able to run a modest local administration for their own benefit by not paying for lots of things in England which London insists on funding. Other small countries in Europe are doing it well, so so could the Scots.

The English seem to be mainly worried about their own financial system, not what's good for Scotland long-term.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/worl...-scotland-vote

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

The fact that the Cameron government is desperately trying to bribe them to vote No by proposing to return more of Scottish taxes to Scotland suggests what has always been true historically - the English have always diverted lots of Scottish revenue on a one-way trip to London. Five million Scots should be able to run a modest local administration for their own benefit by not paying for lots of things in England which London insists on funding. Other small countries in Europe are doing it well, so so could the Scots.

The English seem to be mainly worried about their own financial system, not what's good for Scotland long-term.

Banks brace for Scotland vote | Bangkok Post: news

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

---

The link you posted is about a possible cash run on the banking system. It has nothing to do with nor is it supporting your case that the poms keep the Scottish revenue.

5 million people do not actually get to fund much, --- look at NZ for example. and NZ has a higher income per head than Scotland.

you say " the Cameron government is desperately trying to bribe" I have read no such activities, what I have read is the YES lobbyists stating higher std's of living and other such fantasy promises. which appear to me to look like bribing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 85 county

The link you posted is about a possible cash run on the banking system. It has nothing to do with nor is it supporting your case that the poms keep the Scottish revenue.

5 million people do not actually get to fund much, --- look at NZ for example. and NZ has a higher income per head than Scotland.

you say " the Cameron government is desperately trying to bribe" I have read no such activities, what I have read is the YES lobbyists stating higher std's of living and other such fantasy promises. which appear to me to look like bribing.

---

I posted that link in support of my comment that the English seem mainly concerned about maintaining their financial system, not what's good for Scotland. Still think that's true.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I posted that link in support of my comment that the English seem mainly concerned about maintaining their financial system, not what's good for Scotland. Still think that's true.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

---

nope you are reading something to it thats not there

Don't think so.


This legal expert reckons if the Scots went independent and retained the Queen as the Queen of Scotland she would also be the Queen of Britain, but no longer be the Queen of the United Kingdom. Since Australia draws the monarch from the United Kingdom, if there no longer was a monarch of the United Kingdom, then our Governor General would have no-one to report to. No idea if that stacks up legally, but its interesting...
Scottish referendum: Yes vote to independence could leave Australia without head of state, expert says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

This legal expert reckons if the Scots went independent and retained the Queen as the Queen of Scotland she would also be the Queen of Britain, but no longer be the Queen of the United Kingdom. Since Australia draws the monarch from the United Kingdom, if there no longer was a monarch of the United Kingdom, then our Governor General would have no-one to report to. No idea if that stacks up legally, but its interesting...
Scottish referendum: Yes vote to independence could leave Australia without head of state, expert says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

He's talking out of the wrong end. The UK comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Technically the UK will become Britain and Northern Ireland, but will remain the UK. The constitutional entity will not change, any more than Australia would cease to be Australia if, say, WA was to secede as it keeps threatening to.

A bigger question is whether the Queen can remain directly Queen of Scotland, and the stronger arguments appear to suggest that she will need to appoint a Governor-General.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Don't think so.


This legal expert reckons if the Scots went independent and retained the Queen as the Queen of Scotland she would also be the Queen of Britain, but no longer be the Queen of the United Kingdom. Since Australia draws the monarch from the United Kingdom, if there no longer was a monarch of the United Kingdom, then our Governor General would have no-one to report to. No idea if that stacks up legally, but its interesting...
Scottish referendum: Yes vote to independence could leave Australia without head of state, expert says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

There is always an expert out there.

The Federation of Australia was created by an Act of Parliament in London at which point it became a country in its own right, although with some ties back to GB. That is a historical fact even if there ceases to be a parliament on the Thames or ceases to be a United Kingdom.

Remember Elizabeth II is also Queen of Australia in her own right (I'm not sure if that makes her Q. Betty the First of Oz), so if the England or the UK ceased to be a constitutional monarchy she would still be QEII with her only constitutional responsibilities as Head of State of the Commonwealth or merely of those Commonwealth Countries who still maintain her as Head of State.

Also that under current legislation that a future UK Monarch could be a different Monarch of Australia.

Until recently the Aussie legislation reflected the Uk legislation where the Monarch was to be the first born son. However the UK legislation has been recently changed so the Monarch to be the first born - irrespective of sex.

So if Prince George had actually been born Princess Georgina then she would be the future Queen of the UK but if the new bub in the oven was born a boy then this person would be the future King of Australia.

Now obviously our legislation will get changed but if it didn't in the future we could have a different monarch to the UK - in theory at least.