Scottish independence referendum

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Ahm ....

Australia is Independant and has been since 1901.

Ahm...

No we're not.

Whilst Australia is a soveriegn nation with borders, our actual head of state is Elizabeth II, constitutional monarch of Australia. What we gained in 1901 (Federation) was the right to self determination through our own government elected by the nation. This does not prohibit the monarch from interfering with our determination as was seen in 1975 when the Whitlam government was sacked by the Governor General (The Queens Representative).

In 1999 Australia was offered independance and like the Scots we turned it down. The difference here was instead of asking if we wanted independance which polling proved would have got the nod, we were constrained to answering would we accept a President elected by the Government. This question was always going to fail as the politicians always know that the public don't trust them to select a suitable President.

I am disapointed that the Scots didn't gain independance, maybe they could have had a system much like our with self determination rather than the full divorce. I toured Scotland some years ago and back then the resentment of the brits by the scots was very plain to see but the English were sucking the life (in taxes) out of them. I hope life gets better for them.

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

In 1999 Australia was offered independance and like the Scots we turned it down. The difference here was instead of asking if we wanted independance which polling proved would have got the nod, we were constrained to answering would we accept a President elected by the Government. This question was always going to fail as the politicians always know that the public don't trust them to select a suitable President.

I was done deliberately to ensure the referendum failed.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

I am disapointed that the Scots didn't gain independance

Why would you be disappointed, the majority of Scots didn't want independence.

Originally Posted by MarkAW

I toured Scotland some years ago and back then the resentment of the brits by the scots was very plain to see but the English were sucking the life (in taxes) out of them. I hope life gets better for them.

I have lived in England & Scotland, the Scots are no worse off than the English. In fact as a nation I would say they are substantially better off than England, smaller population, awesome countryside, less jihadists, better golf courses.

Those voting Yes had a very simplistic view of life after independence, they would have been up **** creek without a paddle imo.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

Ahm...

No we're not.

Whilst Australia is a soveriegn nation with borders, our actual head of state is Elizabeth II, constitutional monarch of Australia. What we gained in 1901 (Federation) was the right to self determination through our own government elected by the nation. This does not prohibit the monarch from interfering with our determination as was seen in 1975 when the Whitlam government was sacked by the Governor General (The Queens Representative).

In 1999 Australia was offered independance and like the Scots we turned it down. The difference here was instead of asking if we wanted independance which polling proved would have got the nod, we were constrained to answering would we accept a President elected by the Government. This question was always going to fail as the politicians always know that the public don't trust them to select a suitable President.

I am disapointed that the Scots didn't gain independance, maybe they could have had a system much like our with self determination rather than the full divorce. I toured Scotland some years ago and back then the resentment of the brits by the scots was very plain to see but the English were sucking the life (in taxes) out of them. I hope life gets better for them.

The Governor General was doing his job, regardless of our Queen.

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Why would you be disappointed, the majority of Scots didn't want independence.



I have lived in England & Scotland, the Scots are no worse off than the English. In fact as a nation I would say they are substantially better off than England, smaller population, awesome countryside, less jihadists, better golf courses.

Those voting Yes had a very simplistic view of life after independence, they would have been up **** creek without a paddle imo.

To put it very simply, on a per person basis, the money contributed to the general good of the UK was not returned equitably. Scotland did not receive 30% (their population value) of taxes back in the form of public infrastructure or welfare. By becoming a separate economic region they would have fared far better than they do now - this will change if the promises made by the Brits is kept but Britain does have a long history of lying to the Scots - read your history.

[MarkAW]

Originally Posted by castellan

The Governor General was doing his job, regardless of our Queen.

What sort of an answer is that?

The Governor General is a representative of the Queen, without a Queen there is no Governor General. It wasn't the GG who made the decision as he/she has no entitlement to make that decision on his/her own. Even if the opposition blocks "Supply" it must be the Constitutional Monarch ie Lizzy who makes the decision to force a disolution of parliment. Its the GG job to proceed with Lizzy's decision.

[Peter B - CV8]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

What sort of an answer is that?

The Governor General is a representative of the Queen, without a Queen there is no Governor General. It wasn't the GG who made the decision as he/she has no entitlement to make that decision on his/her own. Even if the opposition blocks "Supply" it must be the Constitutional Monarch ie Lizzy who makes the decision to force a disolution of parliment. Its the GG job to proceed with Lizzy's decision.

Most of the above is correct - but if you care to do a bit more research, it is patently obvious that the Queen didn't order the dismissal of the Whitlam/Labor government. The GG was empowered to do this in his own right. He strung Whitlam along for a fair while - hoping that the Labor/Liberal parties could work out agreement. At the end of the day, the GG sacked Whitlam - before Whitlam was able to sack the GG (which the PM is able to do - without getting the queen's permission)

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

What sort of an answer is that?

The Governor General is a representative of the Queen, without a Queen there is no Governor General. It wasn't the GG who made the decision as he/she has no entitlement to make that decision on his/her own. Even if the opposition blocks "Supply" it must be the Constitutional Monarch ie Lizzy who makes the decision to force a disolution of parliment. Its the GG job to proceed with Lizzy's decision.

Very true as Queens representative in ceremonial roles, Governor General only accepts advise from the Prime minister, ministers or Parliament of Australia.
The Queen has not interfered in our parliamentary roles at all & never will.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

read your history.

History will show Scotland did not want to be independent of Great Britain, get over it.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by MarkAW

Ahm...

No we're not.

Whilst Australia is a soveriegn nation with borders, our actual head of state is Elizabeth II, constitutional monarch of Australia. What we gained in 1901 (Federation) was the right to self determination through our own government elected by the nation. This does not prohibit the monarch from interfering with our determination as was seen in 1975 when the Whitlam government was sacked by the Governor General (The Queens Representative).

In 1999 Australia was offered independance and like the Scots we turned it down. The difference here was instead of asking if we wanted independance which polling proved would have got the nod, we were constrained to answering would we accept a President elected by the Government. This question was always going to fail as the politicians always know that the public don't trust them to select a suitable President.

I am disapointed that the Scots didn't gain independance, maybe they could have had a system much like our with self determination rather than the full divorce. I toured Scotland some years ago and back then the resentment of the brits by the scots was very plain to see but the English were sucking the life (in taxes) out of them. I hope life gets better for them.

You're wrong.

Australia is Independant of the UK, it just so happens we have the same head of state.

The UK parliament has no say in our affairs and we have our own constitution.

You are confusing being Independant and being a republic, they are mutually exclusive.

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

You're wrong.

Australia is Independant of the UK, it just so happens we have the same head of state.

The UK parliament has no say in our affairs and we have our own constitution.

You are confusing being Independant and being a republic, they are mutually exclusive.

Just out of curiosity.... Can England(the royals) order Aus to send troops to fights in Englands wars of the past half a world away?

Or Does Aus have to volunteer?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Just out of curiosity.... Can England(the royals) order Aus to send troops to fights in Englands wars of the past half a world away?

Or Does Aus have to volunteer?

England cannot order us to go to war, they can ask but it is up to our own ruling government to decide.
We do have treaties which would obligate us to help but still our decision to participate.

[Sprintey]

Scotland voted to remain part of the Union.

Some points that have not been raised so far:

Scotland receives 1600 pounds more per person than other regions in the UK (The Barnett Formula)
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved parliamentary/spending/taxation powers as part of the United Kingdom ("Devo-Max") - England does NOT yet have this right, despite having the biggest population and largest economy.
Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs vote on bills affecting the English constituency in Westminster (The "West Lothian question") - without having the results of said bills affecting their consitutents. People in England have bills relating to their lives voted on by people who are thus unelected by them. This is undemocratic.
A vast majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster are Labour Party - England has had, over decades, Labour rule in Westminster determining policy for them, without actually having elected this party! England when taken in isolation would vote more conservatively, more often. Some are pushing for an English parliament, with Westminster concerned with whole-UK matters.

Solutions: Westminster system has evolved over hundreds of years, and it is this gradualism that has given us the best system of individual freedom and rights from a system of government in the modern world. The stability we enjoy in Australia is a gift of this system. Disallowing Scottish members the vote over English matters in Westminster is probably the most gradual and subtle change that will enhance democracy in the UK, combined with Devo-Max for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

My 2c: I'm of Scots/English family. Of course I want my families to remain together! In Australia we're lucky the Commonwealth was formed by independent colonies, who have retained their right to self-govern for over 100 years now. It might make for changing rules (rail lines!) over state borders, but it certainly respects the legal framework in which our country was formed.

[mik]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

And Australia going "independant" wouId change what exactly? I have never understood the arguments for an Australian republic?

I used to think being independant would be a good thing for Australia,
I'm not so sure now, and if you look back at our political history , there are quite a few questionable goings on over the years, laws changed without due process, if i remember correctly our coat of arms was changed illegaly and the wording of our constitution also changed which might sound like no big deal, but it goes back to what's really legal in our government.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Just out of curiosity.... Can England(the royals) order Aus to send troops to fights in Englands wars of the past half a world away?

Or Does Aus have to volunteer?

Of course the Queen can make us do what ever she wants, but it would be done by her "influence" and the minders so it would be seen as arms' length.

Plenty of Anglican establishment private school political types in the Australian political scene looking for some sort of Title bestowed upon them.

[chamb0]

I think a few wires are getting crossed ^^^

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by chamb0

I think a few wires are getting crossed ^^^

This is what happens when you cant differentiate between an opinion and a fact.