An Independent Scotland?

And secondly, it's been obvious since at least 1977 that this is what devolution would lead to, but it wasn't the Tories who brought in devolution for Scotland and Wales. It was the Blair government. I would ask whether they thought it through properly at the time, but I think we all know what the answer to that is.

All the accusations against what the Tories promised and what might or might not be delivered seems strange, just two days after the vote. As we said previously, they'll be some sour grapes if the no wins.
Still, Remember all the promises bliars govt made to get into power that weren't kept? Strange that the correct way to deal with that was to vote them out of power.
 
I never said that the Tories were Machiavellian or had planned this - I would not credit them with that much forethought before the event …… it is just a consequence of what is now happening
Two days after the vote? What do you want, immediate additional powers, or a properly, thought out constitutional change that actually reflects all of the union, not just winging scots.
 
Two days after the vote? What do you want, immediate additional powers, or a properly, thought out constitutional change that actually reflects all of the union, not just winging scots.

I'm not sure what you are seeing when you read any posting, you seem to miss the point and misread what has been said …….. I certainly have difficultly associating your responses with the threads that you are responding to and most seem to be drafted in haste

Yes I would want any change in policy especially relating to constitutional issues to be properly thought out,

No
I do not want immediate powers to be given to Scotland, in fact I would not want any additional powers to be given to Scotland without such important issues being put to UK voters, so I do not think that this should happen until after the next General Election.
BUT
I don't really associate "properly thought out" with the Westminster Government, especially in the timetable that they have proposed.

What Cameron has promised to Scotland and Brown has vowed is just bad Government, in concept and in timing ……… was it given as an incentive or even a bribe to say "No"

My point has been that if Scotland want to get what they desire they should have voted Yes - but 55% of the Scots voted no, effectively supporting the Union and not supporting one of the main goals of the SNP, the very party that the Scottish people have mandated to run their country…… an unusual paradox

In concept I do not support a break up of the Union, and certainly not Nationalism in any way, but I have no faith in the Westminster parliament changing anything that will improve the situation in the UK and certainly not in the short term.

The Westminster Parliament is not fit for purpose, it is outdated in concept and corrupt in that it does not function efficiently. It is full of vested interests and cronyism on all sides.

They need to get their own house in order and bring control and management over themselves and into Government before they change any constitutional matters.

Fortunately I am now too old to really care and will leave it up to the younger generations, but I find it sometimes quite amusing to "stir' from the sidelines …….. and as you probably know I live most of my retired life outside the UK.

The UK is a marvellous country but can certainly become a lot better, if?
 
Last edited:
I'll say here what I've said elsewhere leading up to the Referendum and I've not seen anything to change my mind.

There were promises made which will have made some voters decide to vote no.

These promises were that a whole raft of new powers for Scotland would be decided on with input from all Scots in the months leading up to Christmas. By February a draft bill would be ready and by May it would be before Parliament.

With the feeling generated by the Press (with the connivance of MPs) in England, an election a few short weeks away and UKIP campaigning against it, how many English Westminster MPs are going to risk their seats to give what the people see as more freebies to a bunch of loutish Scots who are far away and have no more say in the matter?

We're already seeing the promises breaking down, Milliband says he's not signing up to it, Tory MPs are rebelling and to top that, we have Jack Straw saying it should be made illegal to attempt anything like this again.

No won over yes by 55% versus 45%, that makes it look quite big, but less than 200,000 voters had to go with yes over no to have swung the result the other way. I wonder how many people will be looking at what is going on down South just now worrying that maybe they made a huge mistake?
 
With the feeling generated by the Press (with the connivance of MPs) in England, an election a few short weeks away and UKIP campaigning against it, how many English Westminster MPs are going to risk their seats to give what the people see as more freebies to a bunch of loutish Scots who are far away and have no more say in the matter?

This is one reason I consider removing Scottish & Welsh votes on English only laws important. Visible give from both sides will make any agreement easier to sell to the public in England.
 
Have to say I've always thought it daft to have Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters so an English devolved whatsit would be fine with me.
 
Try looking into the queens finances and then see how much she pays against how much the civil list pay, rather than just spouting off and showing your ignorance.

I have done and her and her family take out many times what they pay in. You can defend her all you like. It matters not a jot to me.
 
I have done and her and her family take out many times what they pay in. You can defend her all you like. It matters not a jot to me.

In April Buckingham Palace will receive £36.1m to fund the Queen’s official duties, a 16 per cent increase on the £31m paid by taxpayers last year.

Imagine this eh? Her Maj's "wages" increase by 16% whilst most working class folk including me are forced to accept a 1% rise which is the first for over 3 years. Good old Britain where everybody is treated equally. Oh wait....
 
Sorry she ONLY got a 5% rise this year. She'll be scared to turn her heating on at this rate.






Handing out Maundy money is a royal tradition - but how does the Queen get her own cash?
It's that time of year again.

Royal aides are gearing up to get their annual battering as they open their account books to reveal how they have spent our money.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, (there is no longer an actual purse but if there was it would be massive) will tomorrow spill the beans on how the Sovereign Grant has been spent in the financial year ending April 2014.

Republicans and Monarchists always start arguing at this time of year, shouting different facts and figures at each other. But many of you reading this will quietly be wondering what exactly is the Sovereign Grant (go on admit it, it's OK).

That's why we are here to help you navigate your way through the web of intrigue that is royal finances.

What exactly is the Sovereign Grant? How is the Monarchy funded? How rich is the Queen? And how much does she cost us?

If you are thinking of joining the debate this year here is our FAQ guide...

Where does the Queen get her money from?
Make no mistake about it, the Queen is a rich lady. She is rich in her own right, meaning that if she were to jack it all in tomorrow (not going to happen) she would still be sitting pretty in a mansion somewhere. But a large part of the money she receives is because she holds the role of Sovereign. Keeping it simple, she has three main sources of income:

  1. Private income
  2. The Privy Purse/Duchy of Lancaster
  3. The Sovereign Grant
What is her private income?
The Queen's private income is money from her personal investment portfolio and inherited private estates – which includes Balmoral Castle and the Sandringham Estate.

According to the Sunday Times Rich List 2014 the Queen is worth £330 million and ranked 285 in the world. But this can only be a guess because the Queen is not required to make her private funds public.

Estimates of the Queen's personal wealth also sometimes mistakenly include things like treasures from the Royal Collection, the Crown Jewels and official residences like Buckingham Palace which are not hers to sell.

Basically, she's rich, but we don't know how rich and probably never will. She has paid tax on her personal income since 1993 but, again, we don't know how much.



285

Queen's Ranking in Sunday Times Rich List 2014

£330m

The Queen's worth, as estimated by Sunday Times




What is the Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster?
The Duchy of Lancaster is land, property and other assets of about 18,000 hectares in England and Wales.

It has existed since 1399 to provide an income for the Sovereign – who is also known as the Duke of Lancaster (yes, even though the Queen is a woman she is known as the Duke of Lancaster).

The income it generates is referred to as the Privy Purse.

The Queen cannot do what she wants with the Duchy – it is managed and run for her – but she receives all the net profits, which in the financial year ending April 2013 amounted to £12.5 million.

This is generally considered to be her private income – although republicans argue that it is money that would go to the Treasury if we didn't have a monarchy (no Sovereign = no Duchy) and so should be considered public funds.

The Queen voluntarily pays income tax on the profits, but the annual accounts do not say how much. The Duchy does not pay Corporation Tax.

The Queen uses the money to pay for private and official expenditure – including meeting expenses of members of the royal family such as Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and Princess Anne.

She also uses it for the upkeep of Balmoral Castle.



£12.5m

2012-13 Duchy of Lancaster net profits



What is the Sovereign Grant?
The Sovereign Grant is a lump sum given to the Queen by the Treasury each year to carry out her official duties.

It pays for the upkeep of occupied official residences such as Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, royal travel, investitures, garden parties etc.

It was introduced in 2012 to roll several grants (eg the Civil List, Royal Travel Grants-in-aid) into one to be more simple (huh, as if any of this is simple).

In the financial year 2013-14 the queen got £36.1million. In the financial year 2014 to 2015 she will receive £37.9million.

How much she's given is determined at 15% of the profit of the Crown Estate but she can never get less than the previous year, even if the Crown estate profits fall.



Sovereign Grant
£36.1m

(2013-14)

£37.9m

(2014-15)

5%

Queen's pay rise



What is the Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate is a large portfolio of land, now worth around £8.1 billion, that was historically the property of the Monarch.

How they got all the land (which includes almost all of the UK seabed) is a long and complex story (aren't they all) but George III (the one famous for going mad) inherited it when he came to the throne in 1760.

The funding and expenditure of the Monarchy was different then (heck, everything was different then).

King George was paying the salaries of judges, ambassadors and civil servants (then called the Civil List) from the money from the Crown Estate and he found himself inheriting debt.

So he cut a deal with Parliament to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown Estate in exchange for Parliament paying for the Civil List and giving him a lump sum.

That is the system that has been in place ever since.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation headed by a board and all its profits go to the Treasury.

Many monarchists argue that, because of the Monarchy's historical ownership of the Crown Estate, the fact the Treasury gets all its profits should be seen as a generous act on the part of the Sovereign.

Some monarchists use this as a reason to claim that, because the Sovereign Grant is calculated as 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate, the Sovereign Grant should not be referred to as public money.

However, the argument that the profits from the Crown Estate should be seen as belonging to the Queen really only works if you are going to start asking her to pay the salaries of ambassadors and civil servants – as the Monarch did before 1760.



£8.1bn

Value of the Crown Estate



So how much does the Queen cost us?
Well, that is a very difficult question to answer.

She definitely costs us the Sovereign Grant each year, which is often divided by the number of people in the country to come up with the figure you may have heard reported like this: “The Queen costs each person in Britain 52p each year.”

However, to use this figure is to ignore the cost of security.

This cost is estimated to run into millions but we have no way of finding out because neither Scotland Yard nor the Royal Household will answer questions or Freedom of Information requests on the subject.

Republicans also argue that the Duchy of Lancaster is revenue lost to the Treasury so this should be calculated in the cost. And they also argue that Lord Lieutenants (the Queen's representatives round the country) cost us £2 million per year, and that the cost to local authorities of hosting royal visits (policing, crowd control etc) should be included in the overall figure.

PS. Don't forget Prince Charles
As the heir to the throne Prince Charles' duties are funded separately to the Queen through the Duchy of Cornwall.

Set up in 1337 to provide the heir with an income, the Duchy is run on the same basis as the Duchy of Lancaster (read the relevant section higher up, I am not repeating it).

In the financial year ending April 2013 year Prince Charles made £19.1million from the Duchy. He pays voluntary income tax after expenses.

Again, republicans argue that this is money that would go to the Treasury if we didn't have a monarchy.



Net profits of Royal Duchies
Duchy of Cornwall
Prince-Charles.jpg

£19.1m

Duchy of Lancaster
Queen-Elizabeth-II.jpg

£12.5m



So is the Monarchy value for money?
Well that is a BIG question and it largely depends on your opinion.

It is also difficult to have a clear debate about the issue when the substantial cost of security is hidden.

However, monarchists argue the value the royal family brings to Britain through their official duties far surpasses any cost.

They argue the monarchy boosts tourism and gives Britain a unique position on the world stage (the monarch is also head of the Commonwealth).

In 2012, company Brand Finance produced a report valuing the monarchy at £44 billion, citing a figure of £26.4 billion in economic benefits through the boost to tourism and other industries.

However, the report included the cost of the Crown Jewels and royal palaces in the valuation – arguably not relevant.

Monarchists argue that to replace the Monarchy with another Head of State would not save money as we would still have to protect and provide for the new figurehead.

However, Republicans dispute this and claim that, by their calculations, the British Monarchy costs more than 100 times the Irish President.



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-finances-explained-you-need-3753404#ixzz3DtQX5lkW
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
 
I would far sooner have the Queen than a lying politician, I do understand the yes camp are fed up but I hope you will at least credit that many of the voters are just like you

Each of the 3 Westinster parties have members who really are the only ones who get a say in manifesto offerings we do not get a choice now I do hope that the people's of the Union hold their feet to the fire over ignoring us all

Maybe we should have a union wide referendum asking

Do you think we should sack all the politicians Mmm many will vote yes, bet that would have a good chance of winning
 
I am certainly not a monarchist. And I lean politically to the left.

If you had presented that information without the old school socialist sneer, I might have read it more carefully.
 
How did this turn into a rant about the Queen?

The UK government borrowed £120 billion in the year to April 2013 & that was an improvement on the previous year. Even if you think the Queen is bad value for money (which isn't proven by a long way) it's small change compared to the countries real problems.
 
Last edited:
In April Buckingham Palace will receive £36.1m to fund the Queen’s official duties, a 16 per cent increase on the £31m paid by taxpayers last year.

Imagine this eh? Her Maj's "wages" increase by 16% whilst most working class folk including me are forced to accept a 1% rise which is the first for over 3 years. Good old Britain where everybody is treated equally. Oh wait....

Ah! So you work in the public sector! That explains your sense of entitlement and your politics of envy!

Lots of working class folk in the private sector - you know, including the ones who generate the GDP that pays your wages - have seen their earnings fall and in many cases have seen their bosses earnings fall since the bubble of over-spending burst in 2008! Yet the economy is recovering and with their decreasing fears of unemployment is coming increasing optimism about their futures ... provided the bloated State doesn't overplay its greedy hand again in the name of imaginary equality!

Equally, where do you think the £36.1m go to fund the Queen's official duties? Do you think she pockets it as appearance money? :rolleyes:
 
Ah! So you work in the public sector! That explains your sense of entitlement and your politics of envy!

Lots of working class folk in the private sector - you know, including the ones who generate the GDP that pays your wages - have seen their earnings fall and in many cases have seen their bosses earnings fall since the bubble of over-spending burst in 2008! Yet the economy is recovering and with their decreasing fears of unemployment is coming increasing optimism about their futures ... provided the bloated State doesn't overplay its greedy hand again in the name of imaginary equality!

Equally, where do you think the £36.1m go to fund the Queen's official duties? Do you think she pockets it as appearance money? :rolleyes:

Exactly, in fact there was a wonderful documentary on I think ITV about 3 months back on the daily life of the queen, where she get political papers to read and sign every single day of the excluding Christmas Day...it even shown here in one episode talking with a foreign leader at the palace discussing boosting trade and making agreements...

Also lets not look past the grant comes from the profit of the crown estates with the other 85% of the profits of the crown estates going into the public purse...so it could be said she is paying 85% corporation tax :eek:

And on your point about public vs private sector...I know a hell of a lot of private sector that will kill for employment benefits of the public sector when it comes to sickness etc...my old company...sick pay didn't even exist in the first year of employment...after twelve months employment you then started to accrue sickness pay allowance at 4.33hours for each full move served starting at month 13
 
There were promises made which will have made some voters decide to vote no.
...
I wonder how many people will be looking at what is going on down South just now worrying that maybe they made a huge mistake?
Let's see if I've got this straight. What you're saying is that an awful lot of Scots couldn't see what was blindingly obvious to us in England?
 
Indeed.

The economic argument against the Monarchy is feeble at best; the political argument weaker still.

My only issue is a moral one about inherited privilege.

It seems to me, however, that even this is being addressed. William is in the weirdest of possible conditions, when you think about it. So I exclude him from my thought processes on the subject.

Harry is rapidly going up in my estimation. I wonder how much comes from him, and how much from corporate strategy.
 
Let's see if I've got this straight. What you're saying is that an awful lot of Scots couldn't see what was blindingly obvious to us in England?

Stewart an awful lot of Scots weren't told the same story you were and I suspect a lot of them wanted to believe, it was a huge decision to make and there's bound to be some who were plain scared of the enormity of it.
 
<snip>
So is the Monarchy value for money?
Well that is a BIG question and it largely depends on your opinion.
<snip>
You could have saved yourself 99% of the effort you put into your rant if you'd just focused on this bit.

And anyway I thought this thread was about Scottish independence. If you want to discuss monarchy vs republicanism, start your own thread.
 
Stewart an awful lot of Scots weren't told the same story you were and I suspect a lot of them wanted to believe, it was a huge decision to make and there's bound to be some who were plain scared of the enormity of it.

To be fair Hugh, that was pointed out many times on this thread.

I wonder if this episode has, to some extent, been a wake up call to those who favour Scottish Independence.

It's a worthy cause, but has to be approached in a slow, sensible manner.
 
Indeed.

The economic argument against the Monarchy is feeble at best; the political argument weaker still.

My only issue is a moral one about inherited privilege.

It seems to me, however, that even this is being addressed. William is in the weirdest of possible conditions, when you think about it. So I exclude him from my thought processes on the subject.

Harry is rapidly going up in my estimation. I wonder how much comes from him, and how much from corporate strategy.

Personally I have a lot of time for both William and Harry, they both come across really well...yes Harry has don't some dumb s***e from time to time in his younger years but who the hell hasn't and I don't count the Vegas debarked in that...because hell given the opportunity I'm sure most guys would have done the same :naughty:

But they both come across really well, for their position is life they come across very grounded and caring...and most of all sincere in there actions too which is not something you can say of most politicians ;)
 
If it's a union then how can it ever be illegal for a country to want to separate? If it goes down that route then doesn't it become more a case of an occupied country?
 
Stewart an awful lot of Scots weren't told the same story you were and I suspect a lot of them wanted to believe, it was a huge decision to make and there's bound to be some who were plain scared of the enormity of it.
Well, I'm not sure we were told a different story. I think it's more a reflection of the fact that the West Lothian issue is more obvious to us down here. I know you personally agree that it's an injustice, but it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Scots either hadn't given it much thought or just don't appreciate how strongly a lot of English folk feel about it.

For what it's worth, I think more devolution has to come. That genie is well and truly out of the bottle. And it will come "as soon as possible" . I don't think the Scots have necessarily been lied to in that respect. The problem is that we don't yet fully understand what else needs to happen in order to make it possible. So any specific timetable is necessarily fanciful. Personally I think that was always obvious, and I haven't met anyone of any political persuasion who thought the timetable offered to the Scots was even remotely realistic. To my mind that doesn't reflect well on Cameron and Miliband who were being either disingenuous or naive about the timetable.

But timing is a detail, really. It has to happen, soon-ish.
 
Stewart more devolution of powers is coming, via the Scotland Act of 2012 but that's got nothing to do with the promises made last week by the three wise monkeys and even today Gordon Brown has repeated his 'timetable' speech. Not that a hasbeen Labour back bencher has any way to force them to follow it. Milliband is quoted as saying "there are more important things to worry about than more devo for Scotland"

Interesting point, the last day and a half has seen jumps in memberships of the Scottish Greens SSP and SNP in the thousands, 5000 for the SNP and over 3000 for the Greens. I think we are Yamamoto's 'sleeping giant, filled with a terrible resolve', if WM don't come up with the goods the Scots won't forgive and forget.
 
I think we are Yamamoto's 'sleeping giant, filled with a terrible resolve', .

Hugh. You might not believe this, but I'm actually with you on the idea of a move towards Independence. I was utterly and totally against the recent farce, but not against the idea.

So, don't spoil it with emotive and, frankly, confrontational when you consider the context of that quote, nonsense like this.

Edit: As an aside, it was a genius Scotsman who dragged Japan from the medieval to military industrial might.
 
Last edited:
Stewart an awful lot of Scots weren't told the same story you were and I suspect a lot of them wanted to believe, it was a huge decision to make and there's bound to be some who were plain scared of the enormity of it.

How is this not obvious ?

Have we not discussed this previously - I think we have !
 
Two days after the vote? What do you want, immediate additional powers, or a properly, thought out constitutional change that actually reflects all of the union, not just winging scots.
The very initial part of the vow was to be enacted ONE day after the vote. People are expecting they keep their word - that's it. Nothing more nothing less.

(Having "politician" together in a sentence with "keep their word" feels wrong to even be typing!).
 
Have to say I've always thought it daft to have Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters so an English devolved whatsit would be fine with me.
Agree. Any step toward greater local power for each region is a step forward. Decisions should be taken as close as possible to (or even by) the people affected. An England only legislature would be positive.

(It does put yet another layer of potential troughers to pay for....)
 
Hugh. You might not believe this, but I'm actually with you on the idea of a move towards Independence. I was utterly and totally against the recent farce, but not against the idea.

So, don't spoil it with emotive and, frankly, confrontational when you consider the context of that quote, nonsense like this.

Edit: As an aside, it was a genius Scotsman who dragged Japan from the medieval to military industrial might.
Glover was in Japan and an important figure, but it's doing him an enormous disservice to level that at him. You portray him like Bush or Blair, meanwhile he was a century before the war, and a gaijin in a very closed country.
 
Hasn't this thread run its course now? The democratic majority of Scotland have voted, and the democratic majority of those who have voted have clearly indicated they say No to an independent Scotland. There we no conditions to the ballot box paper or were there? I thought it was Yes or No...not a no but if etc...

But no, the bickering, moaning, ignoring factual points just continues like a broken record....An independent Scotland is not going to happen, not in this generation in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish residents.
 
The very initial part of the vow was to be enacted ONE day after the vote. People are expecting they keep their word - that's it. Nothing more nothing less.

(Having "politician" together in a sentence with "keep their word" feels wrong to even be typing!).

These are important steps to be taken, that don't affect just scotland, but all the countries making up the union. I'd much rather these were carefully considered than rushed out a few days after the vote. Rushed policies are never thought out thoroughly. We've seen a few of these from his govt and several from the previous. Human nature (and the media) makes changing your mind (or u turns) difficult.

Scotland has opened Pandora's box and so this is no longer just about giving additional powers to only scotland. An obvious example of this is taxation in Northern Ireland to allow them to compete with Southern Ireland.

So whilst some may be disappointed with the vote, and there is political capital being made over the terms used, commitments over promises, this needs to be addressed fully and with a general election next year is probably right that it becomes part of the election manifesto. In a proper democratic process, you will then get the right to vote over which of the proposals you feel is the correct approach.
 
Good morning guys

I have continued reading peoples point of view and for me its time to move on before i do i will state again for the record and for my neighbours in Scotland i do agree you should have more devolution delivered i do think it will come and i will keep pestering politicians as and when i get the chance to get agreement for not just Scotland but the entire UK

I really think a high percentage are as sick as many of the Scots of lies and deceit and party before the nation

I do hope both camps can come together and keep pressure on the Scot westminster mps too deliver

My best wishes and support for more powers for people of the UK
 
These are important steps to be taken, that don't affect just scotland, but all the countries making up the union. I'd much rather these were carefully considered than rushed out a few days after the vote. Rushed policies are never thought out thoroughly. We've seen a few of these from his govt and several from the previous. Human nature (and the media) makes changing your mind (or u turns) difficult.
Assuming that was the case, "the vow" should have taken that into account and not committed that the motion be tabled on Sep 19th. If it is unreasonable, it is an unreasonable rod they created for their own back.

Bx6XzrYIEAA4K4O.jpg-large.jpg
 
As long as they do those things they can't be reasonably blamed for not keeping their word. However these kind of things still need to be voted through parliament so at any stage the intentions can be thwarted...
 
Salmond seems to be complaining today that the Westminster party leaders made promises to the Scots electorate which hadn't been fully thought through and which weren't guaranteed to be deliverable. That does seem a little ironic to me.
 
Salmond seems to be complaining today that the Westminster party leaders made promises to the Scots electorate which hadn't been fully thought through and which weren't guaranteed to be deliverable. That does seem a little ironic to me.

He needs to butt out. He's stood down now and should be enjoying a bit of gardening leave. Nothing is going to happen overnight it's still the weekend and this announcement isn't even a week old yet.
 
And that is the root of all the problems!

Picking one sentence out of context like that is not constructive. In context, if promises made are kept there will be nothing to forgive, if they're broken why should we?

As long as they do those things they can't be reasonably blamed for not keeping their word. However these kind of things still need to be voted through parliament so at any stage the intentions can be thwarted...

You don't get to be Prime minister by being stupid, David Cameron knew and knows full well that there's little chance of his promises being passed through the HoC and even less of going through the HoL afterwards.
 
He needs to butt out. He's stood down now and should be enjoying a bit of gardening leave. Nothing is going to happen overnight it's still the weekend and this announcement isn't even a week old yet.

Actually no he hasn't, he's still FM and still SNP leader until November, it's his duty to do his job.
 
Back
Top