Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[fluffnik]

simoid said:

fluffnik said:

I may be stuck with the UKofGB&NI for the next few years, but I don't like it any more than I did on the 18th September last.

Since I'm stuck with it meantime, I'm inclined to put some effort into ridding the UK of some of its more odious features, such as the Monarchy, House of Lords, Nuclear Weapons, etc...

We were asked if we wanted independence; we said NO THANKS very clearly.

The prospect of ever asking again damages both out countries and the lives of the people therein. You should put up and shut up. Anything else is selfish.

Neither I nor the SNP think Thursday's election has anything to do with another independence referendum.

We might not be best pleased to still be part of the UK, but that is the game in play for the next wee while, so, that is the game we'll be playing.

There are some things I really, really dislike about the UK, such as the Monarchy, House of Lords, Nuclear Weapons, and Theocracy, indeed I may like at least some of them even less than I like the UK's presence in my country; these things will occupy (some of) my political energies meantime.

[davepoth]

fluffnik said:

They're also vastly more expensive than a non-executive president, which is wasteful rather than offensive.

Rubbish. The Crown is funded by the Crown Estate, which is owned by the Queen. In return for not paying tax the Treasury takes all of the profit from the Crown Estate and gives back 15%. That's about £36m this year.

If we were to get rid of the Monarchy the old arrangement would revert - the Crown would take back the Crown Estate and as a result the Exchequer would be £230m worse off. And that's before we even start talking about how much more expensive running a president would actually be.

[fluffnik]

davepoth said:

fluffnik said:

They're also vastly more expensive than a non-executive president, which is wasteful rather than offensive.

Rubbish. The Crown is funded by the Crown Estate, which is owned by the Queen. In return for not paying tax the Treasury takes all of the profit from the Crown Estate and gives back 15%. That's about £36m this year.

It belongs to the office, not the person, it would become the state's on abolition and the personal wealth of the ex-royals would become liable to normal tax.

I'd not beggar them, but I would make them publicly renounce all titles in perpetuity.

[Funk]

I can't even begin to argue with Fluffnik levels of stupid tonight.

[fluffnik]

Funk said:

I can't even begin to argue with Fluffnik levels of stupid tonight.

Nowt stupid about abolishing monarchies, it's tried and tested.

[Axionknight]

fluffnik said:

Neither I nor the SNP think Thursday's election has anything to do with another independence referendum.

We might not be best pleased to still be part of the UK, but that is the game in play for the next wee while, so, that is the game we'll be playing.

There are some things I really, really dislike about the UK, such as the Monarchy, House of Lords, Nuclear Weapons, and Theocracy, indeed I may like at least some of them even less than I like the UK's presence in my country; these things will occupy (some of) my political energies meantime.

Who's that then? The minority of Scottish voters - thank God.

[///ajd]

f

MissChief said:

simoid said:

We were asked if we wanted independence; we said NO THANKS very clearly.

The prospect of ever asking again damages both out countries and the lives of the people therein. You should put up and shut up. Anything else is selfish.

Not sure I would say a single digit percentage is 'very clearly' and that kind of figure is 'very clearly' ripe for a swing. It wouldn't take more than some crass or ill advised comment from Milliband or Cameron caught on tape.

So you think an ill advised comment may be enough to switch opinions when salmond spunking millions of tax payers money on lies failed?

Putting such flawed thinking to one side, it seems totally isolating the SNP in westminster - isolation after all is their thing and their raison d'etre - is a way to show to scots that if you want influence in westminster, voting in lying divisive nationalists is not effective solution. You can't bully the UK, never works.

[Welshbeef]

MissChief said:

Not sure I would say a single digit percentage is 'very clearly' and that kind of figure is 'very clearly' ripe for a swing. It wouldn't take more than some crass or ill advised comment from Milliband or Cameron caught on tape.

If you are being serious and honestly think that you have an exceptionally low view of the Scottish people. More kind of primary school playground stuff that running nations.


Naive Misstresscooker for sure

[NoNeed]

fluffnik said:

davepoth said:

fluffnik said:

They're also vastly more expensive than a non-executive president, which is wasteful rather than offensive.

Rubbish. The Crown is funded by the Crown Estate, which is owned by the Queen. In return for not paying tax the Treasury takes all of the profit from the Crown Estate and gives back 15%. That's about £36m this year.

It belongs to the office, not the person, it would become the state's on abolition and the personal wealth of the ex-royals would become liable to normal tax.

I'd not beggar them, but I would make them publicly renounce all titles in perpetuity.

How do you make them all "renounce" titles?

[davepoth]

NoNeed said:

fluffnik said:

davepoth said:

fluffnik said:

They're also vastly more expensive than a non-executive president, which is wasteful rather than offensive.

Rubbish. The Crown is funded by the Crown Estate, which is owned by the Queen. In return for not paying tax the Treasury takes all of the profit from the Crown Estate and gives back 15%. That's about £36m this year.

It belongs to the office, not the person, it would become the state's on abolition and the personal wealth of the ex-royals would become liable to normal tax.

I'd not beggar them, but I would make them publicly renounce all titles in perpetuity.

How do you make them all "renounce" titles?

Property is theft.

Property is theft.

[gofasterrosssco]

Strocky said:

simoid said:

Re. democracy: just imagine if we were going independent just now, and had decided on a FPTP system.

Every MSP in an independent Scotland would be SNP! Utopia!

They'd've set the ticking timebomb to go off...

In the event of an iS, the SNP would fragment into left & right giving plenty of room for a truly socialist Labour Party, the greens with a decent voice and the conservatives with a small C would definitely have more representation

This was suggested previously as the end result if Scotland voted for independence. I think the reality, partly due to the highly restricted timeline originally proposed, would be very different.

Remember the SNP, being the Scottish Gov / "Team Scotland" would have to retain a high level of political unity through all negotiations until any such negotiations were complete. This would leave very little time between securing a settlement with rUK, and gearing up different parties to fight the 2016 election. Maybe they would just "postpone" the election till thing have settled..;) Either way, I think the concept of a fracturing of the SNP in the short-medium term is over-stated. One thing they seem to do quite well is retain a fairly well regimented party that seems to deal quite well with any potential internal rebellion. There would be more undoubtedly, but unless the majority of their manifesto is actual lies (the stuff about making Scotland better / fairer etc. etc.) then they should in theory feel they have to stay together as a party to enact this manifesto. Unless of course that's just all padding to achieve their primary goal...

I also question the "truly socialist Labour party" bit, as if you look at any of the social attitude surveys, Scotland as a whole is only slightly more 'left-wing' than the UK as a whole, and clearly when you look at the actual votes counted in recent elections, there is substantial support (if not sufficient to create a majority party by a long margin) for the Conservatives. Now apply that formula to a Scottish Conservative party with a competent leader, that can claim complete freedom from 'Westmonster', I think you'd find many people would put aside some of their ingrained prejudices and take a second look at them - I definitely do not think we would be dominated by left-wing policies, other than perhaps in the short term due to the self-congradulatory euphoria and the 'Great Give away' by those on the Scottish left (until someone left a "we've nay money left" note in the Scottish treasury)

The end result being I think we'd achieve a similar political balance balance between left and right as we see in the UK and most other European countries, it's just that its would have a Saltire sticker on it, which is really what the vast majority of Nats want - doesn't matter what it is, as long as its Scottish..

Edited by gofasterrosssco on Sunday 3rd May 16:47

[fluffnik]

NoNeed said:

How do you make them all "renounce" titles?

Perhaps by criminalising any claim to abolished titles.

If they prefer jail and massive fines, so be it.

(all the "K" should go too)

[Mojocvh]

Edinburger said:

el stovey said:

Lefty said:

Dinoboy said:

So as a Scottish voter who said No to independence, who should I vote for next Thursday?
Voting for labour may result in their forming a coalition with the SNP. Tories don't stand a chance up here. What to do.

Whoever stands the best chance of beating the SNP candidate in your constituency.

I'll be voting Lib Dem - purely in the hope that Salmond doesn't win. I've never voted Lib Dem in my life and never would if it wasn't for this opportunity.

Exactly that. I think if you don't want the SNP you should vote for either lib dem or labour, depending on who is more likely to win. There are quite a few seats in Edinburgh where Labour could quite easily beat the SNP candidate.

Despite having all the momentum, the SNP still avoid all the important questions and anyone talking against them gets shouted down. Edinburgh particularly has many traditional Conservative voters (older and well off) who will likely vote labour to keep the SNP out.

I wouldn't be so sure. Edinburgh has suffered heavily at the hands of Labour-run councils for the last few decades so if the good people of Edinburgh were to tactically vote, for many people I doubt it would be in Labour's favour.

Who confirmed and sustained the TRAMS.

[fluffnik]

davepoth said:

Property is theft.

Property is theft.

Not always by any means, but claiming the Crown Estate as personal property would indeed be theft.

[andymadmak]

fluffnik said:

davepoth said:

Property is theft.

Property is theft.

Not always by any means, but claiming the Crown Estate as personal property would indeed be theft.

Fluffnik in " lefty hypocrisy" shocker. Of course you think that not all property is theft, what with you being a property landlord and all... Its only right that your rules should only apply to others eh?

[anonymous-user]

andymadmak said:

fluffnik said:

davepoth said:

Property is theft.

Property is theft.

Not always by any means, but claiming the Crown Estate as personal property would indeed be theft.

Fluffnik in " lefty hypocrisy" shocker. Of course you think that not all property is theft, what with you being a property landlord and all... Its only right that your rules should only apply to others eh?

Flufnik's right:

"The Crown Estate - FAQs
www.thecrownestate.co.uk › Our business
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."

If we became a republic it would all return to the state and also whatever the RF are given every year does come from the taxpayer. Unquestionably.

[davepoth]

fluffnik said:

Not always by any means, but claiming the Crown Estate as personal property would indeed be theft.

How do you figure that then? Google "Crown Estate" and see what the first link says.

"Property owned by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom "in right of the Crown" "

It's not owned by the state. Let's consider the 1837 Civil List Act, which appears to be the earliest Civil List law available online.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1837/2/pdfs/uk...

"Your Majesty placed unreservedly at their Disposal those Hereditary Revenues which were Transferred to the Public by Your Majesty's immediate Predecessors, "

(my emphasis)

It's not owned by the state.

So to sum up: It's not owned by the state.

[davepoth]

REALIST123 said:

Flufnik's right:

"The Crown Estate - FAQs
www.thecrownestate.co.uk › Our business
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."

If we became a republic it would all return to the state and also whatever the RF are given every year does come from the taxpayer. Unquestionably.

Let's go for the full quote, shall we?

The Crown Estate said:

Who owns The Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

[fluffnik]

andymadmak said:

fluffnik said:

davepoth said:

Property is theft.

Property is theft.

Not always by any means, but claiming the Crown Estate as personal property would indeed be theft.

Fluffnik in " lefty hypocrisy" shocker. Of course you think that not all property is theft, what with you being a property landlord and all... Its only right that your rules should only apply to others eh?

The "Crown" is an organ of state, were we to become a republic it would be subsumed by the new state which would have no need of any personification of the "Crown", nor any need to pay for it.

Building zero net energy flats for longterm let is both profitable and a social good, I am at ease with it.

When it comes to IHT I'd be inclined to increase the personal allowance whilst completely removing the avoidance available to trusts, Dutchies, and the like.

As I have no kids it matters little to me, I'll be leaving everything to medical research.

[fluffnik]

davepoth said:

So to sum up: It's not owned by the state.

It will do when the Crown is absorbed and digested by a new Republic and the Windsors become common Citizens just like everyone else.

No vestige of feudal theocracy should remain.