Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If the royal bloodline was still of Stuart blood would independence still be an issue?

If everything politically was the same, but the you had a Stuart King / Queen would it matter?

*I meant to say that I have no opinion either way over this, but I do find it interesting.

 Wolfstan wrote:

If everything politically was the same, but the you had a Stuart King / Queen would it matter?

Of course it would matter. The monarchy has barely been mentioned in the referendum debate and for good reason.

No. The mechanics of the monarchy are irrelevent in this day and age.

It's a cute thought but this isn't the fourteenth century...the monarch's "bloodline" has been irrelevant for at least 200 years. Hell our current royal family is only there because their ancestors sailed across from Holland and kicked the old ones out, yet they were welcomed with open arms by the English.

It doesn't matter how the current monarchy got the throne, if there's enough support to keep them there.

But, any Commonwealth country can renounce their rule. Look at Australia's referendum a few years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Australia

But, how much of Scotland's independence is to get out from under England, and to what degree? Self-governed and self-ruled are slightly different.

That wiki article is a lie. There is a 7th group of voters, and will be for every Australian Republic Referendum ever. "Do we have to give up the Queens Birthday day off, along with whatever other commonwealth-y holidays we have? If so, no dice".

Considering that salmond claims we will be keeping the queen if independence goes through so the bloodline of the monarchy is not an issue.

Sorry about the shortness of my original post, I did at work whilst bored.

So could some of our Scottish posters clarify some points for me regarding the Yes/No arguments?

What is the motivation for going independent? Again it is out of genuine interest I ask as history and national identity arguments fascinate me

 Wolfstan wrote:
Again it is out of genuine interest I ask as history and national identity arguments fascinate me

History and national identity are large parts of the Yes argument but I think the main reason is the belief that Westminster politics doesn't represent Scotland and we could do at least as well on our own. Scotland's politics are traditionally left wing, as can be seen here:


England is far more right wing and as England has a larger number of MPs this means that the UK as a whole has had a succession of right wing governments and the main UK political parties are all pretty far to the right. Without Scotland Labour and the Lib Dems would find it extremely hard to win a general election.

There is a disconnect between the political ideology of Scots and the political realities of the UK that Scotland can do nothing about. At least that's the main reason why I am in the Yes camp, although national identity also plays a large part.

Color code?

Blue conservatives
red labour
yellow liberal democrats
dark yellow/orange snp
green/grey mixture of independents and smaller parties

Seeing as our Royal Family is German anyway, it probably wouldn't matter.

 dekinrie wrote:
Considering that salmond claims we will be keeping the queen if independence goes through so the bloodline of the monarchy is not an issue.

Salmond says a lot of things that mean little. The SNP has a heavy Republican cadre which has been suspiciously quiet during this process, if they get a Yes vote the SNP's real policy on the Monarchy will be quickly forthcoming.

KommissarKarl wrote:
No. The mechanics of the monarchy are irrelevent in this day and age.

It's a cute thought but this isn't the fourteenth century...the monarch's "bloodline" has been irrelevant for at least 200 years. Hell our current royal family is only there because their ancestors sailed across from Holland and kicked the old ones out, yet they were welcomed with open arms by the English.

Scots might prefer a Stuart monarchy, however the reality of dynastic lineages are that they are extremely convoluted. We had a Stuart monarchy in England because we invited the King of Scotland to become King of England, the English of the time could have chosen someone else. So when we later had a Hannoverian dynasty because the Stuarts were not working out William of Orange had a blood claim because while he was technically not a Stuart he was a grandson of Charles I by his eldest daughter.

Legacies tend to marry back into each other. Henry I married into the bloodline of Alfred the Great via the descendants of Edward the Aetheling whose daughter married Malcom III of Scotland. Later monarchs married into Plantaganet bloodlines The current monarch is a direct blood descendant of the House of Wessex and the House of Normandy both, the Stuart blood is also there and can be traced back also, though in all cases the female line sometimes has to be used. Though it is also interesting to note that through Malcom III the Canmore dynasty of Scotland which preceded the Stuarts had a stronger claim to the Saxon crown than the contemporary English kings did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Seeing as our Royal Family is German anyway, it probably wouldn't matter.

European royal houses are intermarried extensively for obvious reason, they connect like a bowl of spagetti and it is no more reasonable to consider the House of Hannover itself German as English with regards to genetics. Most Englsh monachs tended to marry Spanish or French princesses and in pure geneology the French royal house was more English than our own, this was not unusual as right of title took precedence not genetics. Great houses would swap seat for a greater prize and for a Hannoverian Prince to become an English monarch was such a huge step up

Some monarchies are odder still. The Swedish royal house was invited in, choosing one of Napoleon's marshals to become king. Not only did he accept but managed to keep his crown afterwards and to some extend Sweden is technically the remnant of Bonaparte's Empire. Inviting highborn foreigners to become king is not consigned to the distant past either. The Estonian government shortly after the fall of communism asked Prince Edward to become their king, along the thinking that returning to a constitutional monarchy was as far from communism as you could get. The Palace turned them down. I can see why they chose Prince Edward, senior but not too senior, and while he is fairly useless he is free from scandal and frankly would make a decent king.

 dekinrie wrote:

yellow liberal democrats
dark yellow/orange snp

They are the wrong way round. The Highlands are a very liberal place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
The SNP has a heavy Republican cadre which has been suspiciously quiet during this process

They have been quiet because it has little to nothing to do with independence. After a Yes vote would could hold another referendum to finally get rid of the monarchy easily enough.

With fear of offending the Yes camp with my ignorance, which I apologise for, if ignorance, I ask this:

If you became independent wouldn't you be in danger of becoming a smaller country in the European Union? You say that there is a lot resentment against Parliament with regard to them not listening to or understanding Scottish issues. What happens if the EU is the same? What happens if you end up getting your version of UKIP? What do you say to the crofter living in the Outer Hebrides, when he points out that the MP's sitting in Edinburgh don't have a clue or understand their needs, as they are too far away.

I'm sorry I am sounding like I'm in the No camp, but honestly I'm not. I'm slap bang in the middle. It doesn't help that as an "Englishman" I've never really felt that fussed about my national identity. When referring to anything like that I tend to use "Brit" or when winding up "johnny foreigner" I'll mention the "British Empire" . I can't speak for others, but to me Wales & Scotland have always been separate countries, but countries that make up Great Britain, but that's just me

 Wolfstan wrote:

If you became independent wouldn't you be in danger of becoming a smaller country in the European Union?

How is that a danger? The EU doesn't really affect the governance of Scotland and the effects that it does have tend to be sensible in the main. The EU isn't going to privatise the post office or the NHS nor introduce a bed room tax or even use Scotland as a test bed for a new tax.

Given that the current MSP for the western Isles is a member of the SNP I don't think that your crofter has anyone to blame but himself

 Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The SNP has a heavy Republican cadre which has been suspiciously quiet during this process

They have been quiet because it has little to nothing to do with independence. After a Yes vote would could hold another referendum to finally get rid of the monarchy easily enough.

It has everything to do with independence because if the result is a No the monarchy will be kept, if the vote is a Yes there are strong indications it will not. This is good reason to make a referendum choice influenced on ones personal views on the monarchy. For Salmond to state that the monarchy will be kept is frankly dishonest, its one of many ways he is glossing over the true consequences of a Yes vote, and is good reason not to trust him.

If he has nothing to hide why not tell the truth, if the SNP thinks republicanism a good idea why not reveal their intentions openly rather than indirectly.

I'm just waiting for all the bullgak that Westminster pulled over this to come out twenty years down the line. There's already been an indication of it from them Cameron's backdoor dealings with other European leaders in order for them to discredit the independence movement. There's enough at stake for the British government to be doing what they can to screw over the Yes vote as much as they can.

Obviously I'm a Yes voter. I can't be bothered with the current conservative stance which Souther politics has taken. In a country of sixty four million I'm not satisfied that only the views of those living in London are the ones which the government cares about. London apparently has enough of a population and economy that the government can throw all their money at it whilst the rest of the union falls by the wayside. So rather than just being a straight Yes voter I'm also just opposed to how politics in the union are structured. At least in Scotland I feel as though the guys screwing me over aren't in another country, rather they;re on the other coast where it doesn't cost me £50 to pop over and call them a bunch of tools. From the rhetoric of the No campaigners here I feel that it isn't just their political rhetoric which I don't agree with, but also the politicians that they've chosen to represent them. Johaan Lamont is a horrible woman who spews negativity, whilst the English politicians leading the Better Together campaign come across as only caring about upholding the bureaucracy (the relation to the British government putting down independence movements in other former colonies is oft noted, which frankly makes me wonder why people from those countries can be opposed to the Yes campaign).

Really the whole matter's just full of people who don't want to show their hands and fully commit to issues. Its up to voters to decide things based on their own views and prejudices it would seem. What people think either campaign is compared to the reality may be different things. For me its become a matter of whether I want yet another British government in power that'll spend all its time representing only a portion of the country. I don't want to have a man I didn't vote for, nor did the majority of those in my country telling my parliament what it can and can't do. I mean tat's hardly an equal union. With the Tories becoming even more conservatively minded than they already are in order to out do a fringe party barely represented here I don't rate the prospects for my country if we're still in the union come the next general election. Electing a government that is even less liberal than the current one isn't going to endear Scottish voters. Southern voters obviously didn't feel disaffected enough by the Tories not to elect them, nor are they bothered to much about giving a party of bigots some seats in any real numbers either it would seem. Given UKIP's existing standpoint and treatment of the independence campaign I don't think I'd appreciate having them effecting the policies implemented in my country directly through that of the British government.

So... yup. Generally I'm a Yes voter because: screw conservatism and I want my country to have a say in how it governs itself, without having to run it all by those living four hundred miles to the south. =P

 Orlanth wrote:

It has everything to do with independence because if the result is a No the monarchy will be kept, if the vote is a Yes there are strong indications it will not.

Alex Salmon has already said that the monarchy will be kept in the event of a yes vote.

Besides an independent Scotland becoming a republic would almost certainly require a referendum so its entirely possible that the monarchy will live on, although I hope not.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I don't want to have a man I didn't vote for, nor did the majority of those in my country telling my parliament what it can and can't do. I mean tat's hardly an equal union.

How is it not? Democracy isn't the same as getting what you want personally.

Because not many living in Scotland voted to have the Tory party elected into government. There's so few seats here compared to the south that even if we all voted one way it wouldn't take much to have ourselves over ruled by whatever happens in England (or even just London. I mean in this fantasy situation where everyone votes the population of London exceeds that of Scotland). So yes, Democracy isn't that, but I hardly think its a real democracy where the views of an entire country can be discounted by a single city.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Because not many living in Scotland voted to have the Tory party elected into government. There's so few seats here compared to the south that even if we all voted one way it wouldn't take much to have ourselves over ruled by whatever happens in England (or even just London. I mean in this fantasy situation where everyone votes the population of London exceeds that of Scotland). So yes, Democracy isn't that, but I hardly think its a real democracy where the views of an entire country can be discounted by a single city.

The city I live in has something around 50k inhabitants. If we all voted for one party and someone else won the election, would that give us ground to break out from Sweden and form our own nation.

To borrow a phrase from our American friends, "elections have consequences".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The city I live in has something around 50k inhabitants.

That's besides the point, we aren't talking about a single town or city here, we are talking about a country. Scotland has a single Tory MP out of 59 seats yet we still have a Tory government and that is something that many people have an issue with.

 Palindrome wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The city I live in has something around 50k inhabitants.

That's besides the point, we aren't talking about a single town or city here, we are talking about a country. Scotland has a single Tory MP out of 59 seats yet we still have a Tory government and that is something that many people have an issue with.

I think it's your post that's beside the point, you're a minority that aren't pleased with the current government, but that's democracy.

A Tory MP who stated that all Scots are wasters that don't add anything to the British economy I might add. A view which David Cameron didn't not condone. =P

Though barring them just being conservatives, the Tories treatment of Scotland for the past few hundred years definitely vilifies them in a way that the English seem ignorant of. I mean barring under Thatcher's government. It seems odd to elect a political party that for most of its existence was racist towards Scotland, being involved in invading the country and putting down rebellions. Then again i suppose I could say the same for any voters really as the Tory party stood by racism in general not so many years ago. The current iteration of the party, whilst not so up front about such matters, still has policies which alienate those who don't subscribe to its idea of "Britishness" whilst David Cameron comes out with phrases like "Britain is a Christian country" and has vans drive about with slogans demonizing immigrants.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I think it's your post that's beside the point, you're a minority that aren't pleased with the current government, but that's democracy.

Its almost as though we are having a referendum to become independent.....

The OP as asking why Scots wish to be independent and a large part of the reason is our lack of influence over the UK government.

I'm more interested in the very odd restrictions on who can vote, its seems blinking odd to me that Scots born in Scotland but not currently living inside Scotland cannot take part. That of course wouldn't have anything to do with the fact they are much more likely to vote No.

For that reason alone I don't trust a damn thing he's saying, in the same way I don't trust a damn thing Cameron says. The fact anyone seems to think him being local, when I see all the damage local ministers do around here makes him a more trustworthy politician really beggars belief.

It really seems to me the only thing Salmon is really interested in is getting a foot note in history. I just hope he doesn't screw Scotland over long term for getting it.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
That of course wouldn't have anything to do with the fact they are much more likely to vote No.

Yet English living in Scotland can vote and they are far more likely to be pro union than Scots living in England. I live in England, I am effectively an economic migrant, yet I would vote yes.

That's what I mean it just seems all over the place. Oh and I know a lot would vote Yes outside Scotland, but I believe if the poll I saw was correct, a much higher percentage would say no.

Still don't trust any Politician as far as I can throw them mind.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
That's what I mean it just seems all over the place.

Its by far the simplest way of doing it as the current electoral register will almost certainly be used.

Salmond has kind of been discounted by those I know who're voting Yes. People aren't voting for him, they're voting for independence. Its the standpoint of the SNP that they'll give over power to whoever wins an election for the government of an independent Scotland. Yes, Salmond probably is looking for a legacy, but the guy's been campaigning for independence for what twenty years at least? He's just one man, not the entire campaign (and he's not even the figurehead. Nicola Sturgeon is the face of the Yes campaign, something glazed over by the BBC). The media seems to paint the whole matter as though the Scots watched Braveheart one day then as one said "screw the English" and wanted to break away. That and all we care about is the oil and ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons. There's more to it, but its easier to just put forward such a black and white state of affairs than dealing with matters which'll hurt the head of the average viewer as they drool over their cornflakes.

As for polls I will point out that the results which are commonly publicised are typically skewed. I mean for both sides that is. Salmond did point out on the BBC not too long ago that local papers like the Daily Record were only printing those polls which showed the Yes campaign in a negative light, whilst discounting those which showed that people were in favour for independence. Similarly I wouldn't take the majority what the BBC broadcasts on the matter to heart as its been shown to be straight propaganda (not really just in this one matter, nor is this a new thing either). A poll hardly shows much information, and those that are released to the public hardly represent any slither of truth other than that which will benefit those who're releasing them.