View Full Version : Do you support the Monarchy for Scotland?
We've had quite a lot of events from the Royal Family in the last few years, Jubilees, royal weddings and pregnancies etc and it does seem that popularity is on the up for the monarchy is ever it was really down.
But do we support the monarchy more in an independent Scotland or as part of the UK?
Im happy with the way things are,i like the royal family and happy to be part of the U.K.,it would be a disaster for scotland to go independent
M Swanson
05-Dec-12, 18:54
I'm very interested in following this poll. As I don't live in Scotland I think it would be unfair of me to vote, but I must say, I wouldn't like to see your country become independent from the UK and agree with Bscman that this could be a disastrous move.
Rheg, is this poll necessary? As far as I am concerned there will never be an independent Scotland, Eck and his crew will never win.
It's a Monarchy...you don't get to vote :confused
Green_not_greed
06-Dec-12, 12:38
No line to vote for independence AND King Alex then ?
I think this is one long running soap opera well past it's sell by date.
Rheg, is this poll necessary? As far as I am concerned there will never be an independent Scotland, Eck and his crew will never win.
I hope they do. Give it ten years and the SNP will be where the LibDems are now.
I am rather ambivalent about the Monarchy - if we have a head of State then It might just as well be a monmarch as a self promoting politician but I cant get excited about "supporting" the monarchy. I like the pageantry that goes with it but I dont really care much. Kate and Wills might be having a baby and thats great but I dont understand the obsessing that goes on about these people. I would like to see a referendum on keeping the monarchy if there is a vote for Independence because it should be up to the people to decide such a thing.
M Swanson
07-Dec-12, 11:49
I've been very fortunate, in that I have attended many State occasions, like the Queen's Silver Jubilee Celebrations and Prince Williams' wedding, etc, and being one of over a million people assembled in the Mall, to honour our Royal Family. The atmosphere is incredible and I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel so proud of belonging to something really special. What is marvellous too, is the number of overseas visitors who join in with the fervour of the occasion and feel a part of it all themselves. I've heard several testify to this and often state, "I wish we had a Royal Family like this ourselves." I know the Monarchy isn't everybodies cup of tea, but for me, the figures stack up favourably for retaining them and I can't see them going any time soon. The alternatives are much worse. Disasatrous, in fact. imo. Scotland could well end up with an unelected, unanswerable and undemocratic president, chosen from the EU high presidium. It happens! Be careful what you wish for! The Queen is a worthy Head of State, without any political clout, or interference.
I'm for staying the way we are, believing that 'if it ain't broke, why fix it.'
Maybe the republicans hereabouts have got their own ideas about who we should have as a Head of State. Someone like Mohamed Morsi or Silvio Berlusconi who have shown such dedication to the welfare of their countries and their peoples. So what about someone like Tony Blair? He's got such an..... enigmatic..... smile.
An independent Scotland of course could appoint Henry McLeish who was a wizz with finances, or Donald Trump who is a real go-getter.
The Queen is a worthy Head of State, without any political clout, or interference.
To be fair though, The Duke of Rothesay will be totally different. He has a history of being politically meddlesome.
M Swanson
07-Dec-12, 20:13
To be fair though, The Duke of Rothesay will be totally different. He has a history of being politically meddlesome.
Yes, I expected this to be mentioned, which is why I specifically mentioned the Queen. :) We've no way of knowing whether Prince Charles would continue to meddle, if he became King, but I wouldn't approve of this and I doubt it would be long before he was reined in. I wouldn't say that he enjoys any influence for his views, but then again, none of the main political parties are in the business of listening to the people, or championing their wishes anyway, are they? I do believe in democracy, but personally I believe we've forfeited a great deal of that already. Prince Charles must tow the line and maybe he will? I am ever the optimist! :)
To be fair though, The Duke of Rothesay will be totally different. He has a history of being politically meddlesome.
He was a well liked and respected Naval officer, by all his crews. I met and spoke to him on Armed Forces Day 2011, he is a gentleman
Papigoe Chiel
07-Dec-12, 23:31
"an unelected, unanswerable and undemocratic president" ..... erm is that not what we have already except read queen for president? I don't remember being asked to vote for her, she doesn't answer to anyone and therefore obviously undemocratic! A president might not be any better but at least we would have the chance to vote him or her out every few years and they wouldn't have the bunch of hangers on that we have to pay for at present. However this poll is senseless because the options that we will be asked to vote for in the referendum in 2014 will be whether or not we want Scotland to be an independent country, the queen will continue to be head of state however we vote. If we choose independence then at some time in the future the people of Scotland or for that matter England could be asked whether or not they wish to continue with the monarchy it would then be up to the people to decide ie democracy!
Gowk Whisperer
07-Dec-12, 23:34
"If it ain't broke" if you base your view on the BBC's version of the "the truth". The whole shebang is knackered, the sooner the biggest benefit scrounges in the country aka "the Royal Family" are consigned to history where they belong the better. The whole system was designed to rule over an empire which is long gone the sooner ordinary folk in this country realise they've been the victims of one of the biggest con tricks in history the better.
M Swanson
08-Dec-12, 00:19
"an unelected, unanswerable and undemocratic president" ..... erm is that not what we have already except read queen for president? I don't remember being asked to vote for her, she doesn't answer to anyone and therefore obviously undemocratic! A president might not be any better but at least we would have the chance to vote him or her out every few years and they wouldn't have the bunch of hangers on that we have to pay for at present. However this poll is senseless because the options that we will be asked to vote for in the referendum in 2014 will be whether or not we want Scotland to be an independent country, the queen will continue to be head of state however we vote. If we choose independence then at some time in the future the people of Scotland or for that matter England could be asked whether or not they wish to continue with the monarchy it would then be up to the people to decide ie democracy!
Well Papi, perhaps it would be ideal for you to have your "unelected, unanswerable and undemocratic," President, Mr Van Rompuy, (sic) who presides over you, me and 500 Million other people, who have never been given a chance to vote for him, or anyone else, to be the head of the EU. A strange democracy that! Have you ever heard of this gentleman, prior to his being appointed? Had anyone? Can we "vote him out?" My answer would be no, which is precisely why none of us have been given this opportunity to do so, despite promises which have been broken by all major political parties. That's 500 Million of us! Scary! I'll settle for whatever democracy we have these days and a Monarchy which pays far more into the pot, than it takes out. Unless you can prove otherwise! Perhaps you could include the cost of running a Presidency, similar to the USA too. It's always good to compare whenever possible.
The days of the "hangers-on" are long gone. The Queen and Prince Charles pay millions into the Treasure pot, annually and finance their own family. Unless you can give us the figurework to disprove this. Over to you for that one.
We've had quite a lot of events from the Royal Family in the last few years, Jubilees, royal weddings and pregnancies etc and it does seem that popularity is on the up for the monarchy is ever it was really down.
But do we support the monarchy more in an independent Scotland or as part of the UK?
You didn't give the option "I don't care much about the monarchy, and no longer pay tax to support them, but if that is the will of the majority, I can live with a member of the monarchy being Head of State in an Independent Scotland!" So I didn't vote. I say a member of the monarchy, because I'd much prefer Princess Anne to Charlie-baby when the Queen goes..
why would he put an option like that?
You didn't give the option "I don't care much about the monarchy, and no longer pay tax to support them, but if that is the will of the majority, I can live with a member of the monarchy being Head of State in an Independent Scotland!" So I didn't vote. I say a member of the monarchy, because I'd much prefer Princess Anne to Charlie-baby when the Queen goes..
You didn't give the option "I don't care much about the monarchy, and no longer pay tax to support them, but if that is the will of the majority, I can live with a member of the monarchy being Head of State in an Independent Scotland!" So I didn't vote. I say a member of the monarchy, because I'd much prefer Princess Anne to Charlie-baby when the Queen goes..
Then you should have voted to scrap the Monarchy & its heredity principles.
Then if there was an election there would be nothing stopping Princess Ann from standing & you could vote for her, that's the only way you would get her as head of state.
The Queen and Prince Charles pay millions into the Treasure pot, annually and finance their own family.
They are only able to do so because their ancestors grabbed a large share of Scotland and England's resources. If I recall correctly, it is only recently that they have been paying tax on the income from their inherited wealth.
The fact that the monarchy is supposed to be politically inert (which ultimately is only a convention) is a problem, as it leaves too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister, who is not even directly elected to that position - remember how Gordon Brown became PM. We should have a Head of State who is directly elected and who has the authority to intervene if necessary, for example to stop a Prime Minister involving the country in an illegal war.
As for independence, and the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' argument, the present UK looks thoroughly broken to me. Constitutionally, we still have the unelected House of Lords, with about a hundred hereditary peers and Church of England bishops as well as all the pensioned-off politicians and assorted fat cat members of the Establishment. We have the Tories privatising (wrecking) the NHS south of the border and mismanaging the economy, but Labour differ from then only in some of their rhetoric and would continue with much the same policies, while the Lib Dems might as well go the whole hog and merge with the Tories.
An independent Scotland would have the opportunity to be much more democratic than the present UK and to pursue policies that the majority of the people of Scotland want.
Well it would be a disaster for Scotland to REMAIN part of the UK; in fact its been a disaster fro Scotland throughout all of the twentieth century at least.. We HAVE to get out and we WILL. But the question is more about the monarchy. Personally I'm a republican, but I'm not too fussed about it right now; it's a distraction from what we really have to achieve, and that's parliamentary democracy.
Does disaffection with the Monarchy create the desire for an independent Scotland?
M Swanson
08-Dec-12, 18:33
And I find it odd, that when discussing the Monarchy and Independence, that nobody seems to mention the EU and Scotland's need to renew its' membership - subject to all other countries agreeing to accept it. Take university education, for example. As things stand, Scottish and EU nationals do not pay fees for attending Scottish universities, whilst the English pay full fees. If Scotland achieves full Independence and membership to the EU, will English students be entitled to a free education in Scotland too? As your country is known for its excellent teaching, I can see many kids heading north of the border, and how much will it cost you? A small fortune would be my best guess. Anyone know the answers, please?
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-12, 18:36
Take university education, for example. As things stand, Scottish and EU nationals do not pay fees for attending Scottish universities, whilst the English pay full fees. If Scotland achieves full Independence and membership to the EU, will English students be entitled to a free education in Scotland too?Yes.
Not that it would be worth much after the resulting exodus of the best staff from our top universities....
M Swanson
08-Dec-12, 18:40
May I ask why the staff would leave, please Secrets. My father always maintained that a Scottish education was second to none. What a shame if that were to change. :~(
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-12, 18:50
May I ask why the staff would leave, please Secrets. My father always maintained that a Scottish education was second to none. What a shame if that were to change. :~(Staff don't receive education, they provide it!
I can only tell you about science and scientists, 'cause that's what I am. :cool:
It's all about funding for research. This is distributed on a UK basis. Our top researchers punch above their weight on a UK scale, and are well resourced. A brain drain to the south and to the USA would follow inexorably after secession. This is independent of whether Fat Eck or anyone else were King of Scotland.
M Swanson
08-Dec-12, 18:54
Ah! With you Secrets. A definite minus for Independence then! Very impressed with your CV. Reckon my old Dad was right after all! :D
Then you should have voted to scrap the Monarchy & its heredity principles.
Then if there was an election there would be nothing stopping Princess Ann from standing & you could vote for her, that's the only way you would get her as head of state.
I think the Monarchy is an anachronism in this day and age, and I don't like the hereditary principle (or titles of any kind) but I'd only vote for a Republic if party politics/influence was completely removed from the position of President, or whatever we call it. I'd need to see details about what the job would consist of and how the election would be run before I'd vote for a Republic. At least with our monarchy, you pretty much know how it is run and it is politically independent (though I'm not sure Charles is).
Electing a President might be exactly the way to go..but not if we are going to get a President with real power, wedded to one political POV or beholden to those who funded his/her Campaign. I'd rather elect one of the monarchy, who know already how a constitutional position works than the likes of any of the current crop of politicians/business leaders/quango chairmen etc...and offhand, I can't think of any politician /business leaders/quango chairmen etc I would trust not to let power go to his/her head.
Principles are all very well...but not thinking about the possible consequences of voting principle as opposed to pragmatism leaves the possibility of a presidency like that of the US.and I'd rather a monarchy to that.
An independent Scotland would have the opportunity to be much more democratic than the present UK and to pursue policies that the majority of the people of Scotland want.
This statement appears to be the nub of the question. What guarantees do we have that in an independent Scotland there will be a true democracy? Wee Eck has already said he wants Scotland to remain in the EU, but if we’re concerned about our national sovereignty being undermined by Westminster what makes him think it will be any less undermined by Brussels/Strasbourg?
etaylor1988
09-Dec-12, 10:33
There still seems to be a notion that, somehow, this referendum is all about the SNP and Alex Salmond. First of all, with a yes vote prevailing in 2014, the tories, labour and lib-dems won't simply, "dissapear", as some very narrow minded people think. Secondly, whether you like the SNP/Alex Salmond or not, this is not a vote for them. There is a general election in 2016, "i think". Vote them out then if they cause you so much pain and missery. They are only giving the people of Scotland the "right" to vote.
Can an option be added? 'I don't support the monarchy and I am ambivalent on Scottish independence'.
There still seems to be a notion that, somehow, this referendum is all about the SNP and Alex Salmond. First of all, with a yes vote prevailing in 2014, the tories, labour and lib-dems won't simply, "dissapear", as some very narrow minded people think. Secondly, whether you like the SNP/Alex Salmond or not, this is not a vote for them. There is a general election in 2016, "i think". Vote them out then if they cause you so much pain and missery. They are only giving the people of Scotland the "right" to vote.
There is a very good chance that Labour, Lib Dems and the Scottish Conservatives will disapear. They may well be replaced by others but there will be little for these parties in an Independant Scotland that they campaigned against. Branches of UK parties may well just leave us to it.
Happily, as a paid up member of the Don't be Daft Party, I don't believe it will happen. :lol:
Just to add: I am ambivalent because I believe if Scotland was to go ahead and break the Union, then everyone resident within that Union should be able to vote on the issue.
M Swanson
09-Dec-12, 19:32
I've read through all the posts on this thread and I still can't understand, that when discussing something so hugely important as Independence, there are so few willing to discuss the EU's position in this. If you cast your mind back to the 70's didn't we all learn to our cost, the outcome of being forced into the Common Fisheries Policy? Do you not think that the same would happen with an EU oil and gas grab, under a Common Resource Policy? They tried to introduce this three years ago, but it was shelved. Will it reappear if Scotland has to negotiate new terms for becoming a full member? I suspect it will. How about you?
oldmarine
09-Dec-12, 19:49
I am an American and I'm not certain how it would affect me or my country unless we were all attacked by a foreigh power. If that were to happen I believe we would need the combined strength of everyone like what happened during WW2. We are now facing the combined strength of Muslim countries whom I believe would like to do away with all of us. What would come next?
M Swanson
09-Dec-12, 19:56
Yes, you highlight a real problem here Marine. I'm not sure what will happen with the (fast diminishing,) British Army and Scottish soldiers who play an important part in it. I suppose the EU, with their ambitions for a one world army may have an interfering input on that one. Not sure you'll get much response to your Muslim question. Few dare raise their heads over the parapet. :(
etaylor1988
09-Dec-12, 20:51
There is a very good chance that Labour, Lib Dems and the Scottish Conservatives will disapear. They may well be replaced by others but there will be little for these parties in an Independant Scotland that they campaigned against. Branches of UK parties may well just leave us to it.
Happily, as a paid up member of the Don't be Daft Party, I don't believe it will happen. :lol:
Maybe so, Ducati. There are already branches of Labour, Conservatives and Lib-dems for independence. So, i don't see in what way your statement is relevent ?
I am an American and I'm not certain how it would affect me or my country unless we were all attacked by a foreigh power. If that were to happen I believe we would need the combined strength of everyone like what happened during WW2. We are now facing the combined strength of Muslim countries whom I believe would like to do away with all of us. What would come next?
I see no threat to the UK, or the US, from any muslim countries, or what that would have to do with the Scottish monarchy/independence question
Does disaffection with the Monarchy create the desire for an independent Scotland?
This may contribute to it, but I don't believe it's the major driving force; it's disaffection from the Westminster parliament that counts.
Maybe so, Ducati. There are already branches of Labour, Conservatives and Lib-dems for independence. So, i don't see in what way your statement is relevent ?
I don't think they are 'branches' they would be kicked out! And why would a member of the Unionist Party be in favour of independance? :confused
Independence is the only way forward for Scotland. We are considered by most of those in the Ruling classes South of the Border to be a drain on resources, they are only interested in our oil and our kids as canon fodder in their illegal wars. We are in fact net contributors to the union, who suffer from being out numbered in Westminster, just the South East of England has more MPs than the whole of Scotland. This makes us nothing more than a feudal territory/play thing, we most certainly don't have anything close to democracy. The Scottish people believe in Social justice, whereas the Political class in England are all about the individual and profits for the few at the top of the tree.
The key question for 2014 is who should be responsible for governing Scotland: the people of Scotland or Westminster and the English political classes?
Even the Late Donald Dewar said "Scottish solutions for Scottish problems." Remember we are not electing a government, nor are we passing a vote of confidence in Alex Salmond and the SNP, we're deciding the future for our children and grandchildren.
Just because the question was asked, I'm in favour of the monarchy, although I would consider electing the monarch from the Royal family as a concession to the Republicans. I don't see any benefit to a republic, you just need to cast your eye around the Presidents of the world to see a real shower of reprobates.
I would consider electing the monarch from the Royal family
That'll be an interesting ballot paper. You can choose any candidate you want so long as their surname is Saxe-Coburg.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, why not extend the idea of hereditary to everything......you can have any surgeon you want so long as they are from just the one family.
cptdodger
12-Dec-12, 09:36
That'll be an interesting ballot paper. You can choose any candidate you want so long as their surname is Saxe-Coburg.
Saxe-Coburg ? So you want people to choose candidates that are dead? Waste of time really, is'nt it?
Saxe-Coburg ? So you want people to choose candidates that are dead? Waste of time really, is'nt it?
Or you could choose from the existing Saxe-Coburg family, who conveniently changed their names to Windsor as it was rather awkward to be simultaneously German royalty and King of England while England was at war with Germany.
cptdodger
12-Dec-12, 10:04
Or you could choose from the existing Saxe-Coburg family, who conveniently changed their names to Windsor as it was rather awkward to be simultaneously German royalty and King of England while England was at war with Germany.
So why did'nt you just say Windsor then? Not quite sure who you are more prejudiced against, Germans in general or the Royal Family.
Saxe-Coburg family, who conveniently changed their names to Windsor as it was rather awkward to be simultaneously German royalty and King of England while England was at war with Germany.
Not quite sure who you are more prejudiced against, Germans in general or the Royal Family.
Unless my history teacher all those years ago told me lies, then I believe I was making a statement of fact.
M Swanson
12-Dec-12, 10:34
Independence is the only way forward for Scotland. We are considered by most of those in the Ruling classes South of the Border to be a drain on resources, they are only interested in our oil and our kids as canon fodder in their illegal wars. We are in fact net contributors to the union, who suffer from being out numbered in Westminster, just the South East of England has more MPs than the whole of Scotland. This makes us nothing more than a feudal territory/play thing, we most certainly don't have anything close to democracy. The Scottish people believe in Social justice, whereas the Political class in England are all about the individual and profits for the few at the top of the tree.
The key question for 2014 is who should be responsible for governing Scotland: the people of Scotland or Westminster and the English political classes?
I find this post difficult to believe. Unlike England, Scotland has its own Parliament and the ability to decide so many issues for themselves. Take, for example, the implementation of NHS Trusts. You were able to vote against this, because it wasn't felt to be in your people's best interests. Fine, I have no problem with that. It was a democratic verdict, by Scots, for Scots. The English had no say. But, then when the vote went to the English, you were given the opportunity to vote 'for' it, for us. This tipped the balance and England was forced to accept Trusts. Amazing!
I agree though! Independence is, perhaps, the most important decision the Scots will ever make, because it will determine the future for generations to come. As things stand, improvements can be made, but a 'yes' vote will almost certainly be irreversible, should it all go tetties up. The EU is waiting quietly, in the wings, to mop up, imo. I suspect those only interested in promoting their ideology and care not a jot for people may well be too.
M Swanson
12-Dec-12, 10:40
Waste of time really, is'nt it?
Yes, spot on the money CPT. None of it is relevant to today and the it's just the usual, desperate, pathetic attempt to forward the politics of hate and envy, imo. It's interesting to note, that 38 folks have voted 'no' in this poll and yet few take the opportunity to discuss their position. I'm not surprised. There's scant reward for anyone wishing to express an opinion that is contrary to the views of the bruisers. I hope the result of the vote sends them packing! :D
cptdodger
12-Dec-12, 10:49
Unless my history teacher all those years ago told me lies, then I believe I was making a statement of fact.
Yet, you still insist on referring to the Royal Family by a surname that has not been used since 1917,. So again, who you are more prejudiced against, Germans in general or is it just the Royal Family?
Yet, you still insist on referring to the Royal Family by a surname that has not been used since 1917,. So again, who you are more prejudiced against, Germans in general or is it just the Royal Family?
At this point I must refer you to the viewpoint expressed in my first post on this other thread below and bow out.....just change the word 'Independence' to 'Monarchy'.
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?193509-The-insipid-and-callow-Independence-debate
cptdodger
12-Dec-12, 11:04
At this point I must refer you to the viewpoint expressed in my first post on this other thread below and bow out.....just change the word 'Independence' to 'Monarchy'.
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?193509-The-insipid-and-callow-Independence-debate
You really should take a leaf out of your own book then, I have read all your comments you have written about The Royal Family, even the one that you removed, which was just offensive, and yet you have the nerve to refer to people name calling over politics. Maybe it is time for you to bow out.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.