The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Oldcon1953
I couldn't find a thread to ask this question so I'll ask it here; Myself and A friend are watching a BBC on the coronation of Queen Elizabeth and were wondering exactly what the Queen or Kings role is in politics. Is it purely symbolic? Is there any situation where they can step in and do anything that would have the power of law behind it? Appreciate any response. Thanks


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Queen%27s+role+in+British+politics
Original post by CFL2013
8. What rightful assets do you feel are being denied? A monetary system is not an asset. You would get 8% of the currency reserves, but you would have to sort your own currency. Have you not seen whats happening in Europe with Greece not being able to devalue like it has needed to do for the last three years?!


You'd think it would be easy for Scotland to be devalued with Salmond as head of state, roflmao.
Original post by Oldcon1953
I couldn't find a thread to ask this question so I'll ask it here; Myself and A friend are watching a BBC on the coronation of Queen Elizabeth and were wondering exactly what the Queen or Kings role is in politics. Is it purely symbolic? Is there any situation where they can step in and do anything that would have the power of law behind it? Appreciate any response. Thanks


legally they have some power (the queen can dissolve parliament or refuse to accept a government or give a bill royal assent (essentially blocking legislation)) though in practice these powers have not been used in well over a century because of the constitutional crisis it would cause and the damage it would likely do to the image of the monarchy. despite being purely ceremonial, the monarchy still receive a lot of funding from the government (officially only £31m or so but if you factor in security and other costs that rises much higher) and of course even a ceremonial position as head of state grants them a huge amount of influence both domestically and overseas in both politics and things like trade.
Original post by SciFiRory
legally they have some power (the queen can dissolve parliament or refuse to accept a government or give a bill royal assent (essentially blocking legislation)) though in practice these powers have not been used in well over a century because of the constitutional crisis it would cause and the damage it would likely do to the image of the monarchy. despite being purely ceremonial, the monarchy still receive a lot of funding from the government (officially only £31m or so but if you factor in security and other costs that rises much higher) and of course even a ceremonial position as head of state grants them a huge amount of influence both domestically and overseas in both politics and things like trade.


The power to dissolve Parliament and block any legislation seems to me quite powerful. But you say these powers are quite real? Is there a percentage of the population who would like these powers to be exercised? If a piece of legislation is poorly written, it's poorly written. Does anyone have veto power similar to a U.S. Presidents power that can force legislation back to be rewritten and have changes made?
Original post by 1tartanarmy
It was also the past 4 years before 2008! again google it if you don't believe me. I deliberately held that card close to my chest for when you inevitably claimed it was a one off, as you did! So no, its not the only time, its the 5th time in a decade.

We can use the pound if we want, thats not the issue, the issue is the currency union as you know. The pound is going nowhere, union or not. Ladbrokes have 1/3 that an independent Scotland will use the GBP for a reason, its common sense. Saying otherwise is just trying to frighten people into voting for your cause! Which is morally and ethically disgusting if you ask me.


I'll let you post the link.
Original post by 1tartanarmy
Are you serious

Can't you grasp the fact that maybe, just maybe these politicians are saying something in order to further their own agendas? I.E they don't want us to be independent.

Do you want English businesses to have millions of pounds in transactions costs with an independent Scotland?

The Yes campaign don't. The london based parties are claiming they do!


Do you mean English or RUK businesses? Salmond and Sturgeon seem unaware of the distinction, as do you.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Oldcon1953
The power to dissolve Parliament and block any legislation seems to me quite powerful. But you say these powers are quite real? Is there a percentage of the population who would like these powers to be exercised? If a piece of legislation is poorly written, it's poorly written. Does anyone have veto power similar to a U.S. Presidents power that can force legislation back to be rewritten and have changes made?


yes, very, a head of state, even a ceremonial one has a great deal of power (notional or not). probably some people would, though that would essentially make the UK a totalitarian monarchy if they did use those powers, so I would say it's pretty unlikely. technically I think there is no official "veto" but like I said the queen can essentially do so if she chose not to give a piece of legislation royal assent, though again this hasn't happened in well over a century. the UK system is fairly complicated and has bits that are very old and others that are very new tbh, I mean the House of Lords can technically block legislation and send it back to the Commons to be reviewed, but the Commons via the Parliament act can over-ride this as well, which essentially makes the House of Lords rather toothless, though in reality most legislation passes through it first time because whichever party is in power just appoints a ton more lords to have a majority in both houses, which is pretty dodgy in of itself (not to mention the Lords as with the monarchy have no public mandate as they have never been elected or even subject to a referendum on their powers). the only bit of the UK legislature that is in any way "democratic" is the House of Commons which is elected every 4/5 years by the public (though this itself is dubious as a process due to boundaries and the voting system used)
Original post by 1tartanarmy
It was also the past 4 years before 2008! again google it if you don't believe me. I deliberately held that card close to my chest for when you inevitably claimed it was a one off, as you did! So no, its not the only time, its the 5th time in a decade.

We can use the pound if we want, thats not the issue, the issue is the currency union as you know. The pound is going nowhere, union or not. Ladbrokes have 1/3 that an independent Scotland will use the GBP for a reason, its common sense. Saying otherwise is just trying to frighten people into voting for your cause! Which is morally and ethically disgusting if you ask me.


It is morally disgusting to charge RUK students tuition fees in an independent Scotland but let everybody else from the EU in for nothing. Discrimination based on nationality is what the Yes campaign should not be advocating.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by CFL2013
1. You can't have a currency union with only one side. How is any rUK politician going to sell that to the electorate? 'Yeah guys, Scotland can spend what it wants and you can underwrite it. Vote for me!'

2. So? What do you think is going to happen when 90% of the economy (rUK) wants a low interest rate, and 10% (Scotland) a high one? Your giving up your influence on that.

3. What assets are you talking about? You would get the oil (which your currency would then be horrendously exposed to by the way without the hedge of the rUK economy). This is about a monetary system. If you default on your share of the debt rUK will be able to absorb it but you would get no decent credit in the international credit and bond markets. Your interest rates will sky rocket and any bonds you issue will be junk. The rUK would also clearly then veto your entry to the EU until you did take it.

4. There is no fight about it. Scotland seems to have this idea that this is a big issue in England. It's not. I and most people I know think you should have your vote and, if you go, good luck. But we don't want to underwrite it. Is that so hard to understand?

5. The point in language and location is that it is not a big deal for large firms located in Scotland to move. There are no real language barriers.

6. See 4.

7. See the SNP trying to hold votes on Burns Night, 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, blah blah blah.

8. What rightful assets do you feel are being denied? A monetary system is not an asset. You would get 8% of the currency reserves, but you would have to sort your own currency. Have you not seen whats happening in Europe with Greece not being able to devalue like it has needed to do for the last three years?!


1. We think its best for both sides and this is simply more scare mongering. A currency union simply makes sense.

2. Nobody can set interest rates as it is. Scotland can't and the rUK can't, that point is a damp squib.

3. Seems like you are ok talking about how things would be bad for Scotland but not the rUK. What do you think about the fact that Scotlands oil benefits the balance of payments for the pound? Or that we would have no reason to take any debt if denied a fair settlement? A currency union is a reasonable ask.

4. A currency union means both countries would underwrite it...thats the benefit of it all!

5. Agreed, einstein is on TSR folks.

6. N/A

7. What vote was held on burns night? Come on what vote? There has been none you numpty! Stop picking points out of your arse!

8. I have, the economies of Greece and Germany for example are grossly different. Scotland and England are both fairly prosperous and will both continue to be. Besides...this is the GBP, not the euro. How can any sane person compare? You can't! Our population helped set up this monetary system, a scotsman founded the bank of england incidently. We are entitiled to a part of everything we have helped create. 8 percent of the BoE is Scotlands. It was nationalised in the 40s.
Original post by Midlander
It is morally disgusting to charge RUK students tuition fees in an independent Scotland but let everybody else from the EU in for nothing. Discrimination based on nationality is what the Yes campaign should not be advocating.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I agree with you. At the same time England is beinh really unfair to all students. They have the highest tuition fees in the whole of Europe. Only 10% of english students would take up 80% of the funding here should they have their tution fees paid for up here at there current rate.

May not be fair but I don't think its fair as it is! Westminster are robbing English students!

There is no alternative. All we want is free education but all these rules make people like you get your knickers in a twist about the morality of it all!

Maybe the rUK are the ones needing to question their own selfs!
Original post by 1tartanarmy
I agree with you. At the same time England is beinh really unfair to all students. They have the highest tuition fees in the whole of Europe. Only 10% of english students would take up 80% of the funding here should they have their tution fees paid for up here at there current rate.

May not be fair but I don't think its fair as it is! Westminster are robbing English students!

There is no alternative. All we want is free education but all these rules make people like you get your knickers in a twist about the morality of it all!

Maybe the rUK are the ones needing to question their own selfs!


Here you go saying England in place of RUK again. Wales and Northern Ireland also charge £9k, why don't you include them? Universities in Scotland have quotas for the numbers of Scots, RUK, EU and international students they admit and this can easily continue in an independent Scotland. Letting Scots in for nothing costs these universities big time which is why they immediately went up to £9k for RUK students.

That it would cost the Scottish taxpayer more is irrelevant. If you join the EU you cannot pick and choose which rules you want to follow!


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 1tartanarmy
People are interested in this referendum around the globe. Neutrals do exist. I would like to think that Putin, for example, is neutral. The russian response to communication with the UK was pretty neutral If I remember right.

What expert opinion says a currency union wont work? The Boe, barclays and RBS have all said they could "make it work". Wheres your source?


You are confusing two different things: independence and currency union. The banks have said they can work with independence; they haven't commented on currency union and, as businesses they won't care.

The BoE is the servant of the UK government; it will work within whatever guidelines it is given in the best interests of the UK. It has said that shared currencies don't work well without currency union.

The treasury, another expert and independent body, tasked with looking after UK finances, has now said that a currency union with an independent Scotland is inadvisable for the UK and given firm advice not to have one. Any politician ignoring this publicly-given advice would be a complete fool.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279460/Sir_Nicholas_Macpherson_-_Scotland_and_a_currency_union.pdf
Original post by 1tartanarmy
1. It would be a currency union, thats the plan.
2. The BoE sets interests rates independently of westminster as it is.
3. If we can't have a fair share of assets then why should we take our share of liabilities? Thats just wrong.
4.We want a good working relationship with the RUK, we don't want this "fight". Why not work to make it work for both countries?
5. What has language got to do with the price of milk?
6. Yup, its the people that live here that should decide. I don't believe you care for Scotland at all by the way you speak.
7. Braveheart has never been given as a reason for independence, its a factually incorrect hollywood film...
8. We are 8 odd percent of the UK, we should be allowed 8 odd percent of the assets and 8 odd percent of the debt. George Osborne is saying your not gettign assets but takeyour debt. That my friend... is hilarious.


1. And that is what has been taken off the table after strong treasury advice to the politicians that it wouldn't be in the interests of the UK. It might suit Scotland but that doesn't concern us.

2. The BoE is a UK government institution. It does a particular job, independently, on behalf of the UK government, for the benefit of the UK. This role could be removed from it at any time. It is not a supra-national body.

3. Sterling is not an asset that can be divided; neither is the BoE.

4. The downside for the UK outweighs potential benefits, and this is the main point. Read the treasury advice.

8. Neither the BoE nor sterling are assets that are capable of being shared out like cash, land and buildings. You have been told this umpteen times.
Original post by 1tartanarmy
Nobody can set interest rates as it is. Scotland can't and the rUK can't, that point is a damp squib.


The BoE is an organ of the UK. Its role in setting interest rates has been delegated (and only for the past few years). Essentially, interest rates are set on behalf of the UK, and in its best interests.

Seems like you are ok talking about how things would be bad for Scotland but not the rUK. What do you think about the fact that Scotlands oil benefits the balance of payments for the pound?


This isn't actually true. The balance of payments effect will be broadly neutral.

Read:

http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com/brian-ashcrofts-scottish/2013/04/sterling-and-scottish-independence.html
I think the UK is well within it's rights and should take a hard line with the SNP and the independence campaign.

In the possible event of Scottish independence then the rest of the UK should shut Scotland out in the cold. Scotland will have absolutely no rights to any free rides from the RUK.

Border checks. Stringent ones.

No currency union. Invent your own money.

No cooperation and agreement on sharing anything. Your independent, this is the reality.

Every asset of the UK than can be moved from Scotland should be moved.

It should push hard to ensure Scotland should have to start from as close to scratch as possible.

Use it's influence to ensure Scotland must re-apply to international organizations and such from the beginning. Full EU accession process. The works. If Scotland wants to go it alone it has to earn it like every other country.

Scotland should ideally be kept outside of NATO if the RUK can manage it.

No duel citizenship so that people who chose Scottish passports lose their UK ones.

It should also encourage as much business and talent to move from Scotland to the RUK, to boost the already inevitable tide of people and capital from the country southwards.


These suggestions aren't out of malice or spite but simple reality. If Scotland can't go it alone and survive entirely on it's own two feet then it doesn't deserve independence does it? The SNP's attempts to get independence knowing full well Scotland can't cope and prosper that way is treason, not to the queen or the UK, but to the people of Scotland.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by 1tartanarmy
The BoE acts independently of westminster, so the the UK already lets someone else set interest rates.




Yes....on behalf of the UK and only the UK. The BoE doesn't consider France or Sudan when setting the interest rates. You re living on Salmons dream world with him.

Also, the UK gov could stop the BoE from setting interest rates anytime it wanted to.
Original post by Studentus-anonymous
I think the UK is well within it's rights and should take a hard line with the SNP and the independence campaign.

In the possible event of Scottish independence then the rest of the UK should shut Scotland out in the cold. Scotland will have absolutely no rights to any free rides from the RUK.

Border checks. Stringent ones.

No currency union. Invent your own money.

No cooperation and agreement on sharing anything. Your independent, this is the reality.

Every asset of the UK than can be moved from Scotland should be moved.

It should push hard to ensure Scotland should have to start from as close to scratch as possible.

Use it's influence to ensure Scotland must re-apply to international organizations and such from the beginning. Full EU accession process. The works. If Scotland wants to go it alone it has to earn it like every other country.

Scotland should ideally be kept outside of NATO if the RUK can manage it.

No duel citizenship so that people who chose Scottish passports lose their UK ones.

It should also encourage as much business and talent to move from Scotland to the RUK, to boost the already inevitable tide of people and capital from the country southwards.


These suggestions aren't out of malice or spite but simple reality. If Scotland can't go it alone and survive entirely on it's own two feet then it doesn't deserve independence does it? The SNP's attempts to get independence knowing full well Scotland can't cope and prosper that way is treason, not to the queen or the UK, but to the people of Scotland.


What you said is what SHOULD happen, but the UK gov cant even keep terrorists out of the country and kick out radicals, they are far too incompetent to run an actual border unfortunately.
Original post by Studentus-anonymous
I think the UK is well within it's rights and should take a hard line with the SNP and the independence campaign.

In the possible event of Scottish independence then the rest of the UK should shut Scotland out in the cold. Scotland will have absolutely no rights to any free rides from the RUK.

Border checks. Stringent ones.

No currency union. Invent your own money.

No cooperation and agreement on sharing anything. Your independent, this is the reality.

Every asset of the UK than can be moved from Scotland should be moved.

It should push hard to ensure Scotland should have to start from as close to scratch as possible.

Use it's influence to ensure Scotland must re-apply to international organizations and such from the beginning. Full EU accession process. The works. If Scotland wants to go it alone it has to earn it like every other country.

Scotland should ideally be kept outside of NATO if the RUK can manage it.

No duel citizenship so that people who chose Scottish passports lose their UK ones.

It should also encourage as much business and talent to move from Scotland to the RUK, to boost the already inevitable tide of people and capital from the country southwards.


These suggestions aren't out of malice or spite but simple reality. If Scotland can't go it alone and survive entirely on it's own two feet then it doesn't deserve independence does it? The SNP's attempts to get independence knowing full well Scotland can't cope and prosper that way is treason, not to the queen or the UK, but to the people of Scotland.


Hardly a response that shows a "better together" attitude. Thankfully anyone with any reasonable line of thought doesn't think the way you do.

Why borders with an independent Scotland? Why? Why? I repeat...if its not spite...then whats the rationale here?

Do you want border controls to be set up with republic of Ireland? Right now there isn't any. What reason is there that you should have one with Scotland and not Ireland? Wheres your rationale if its not spite?

I guess it is spite.
Original post by Studentus-anonymous
I think the UK is well within it's rights and should take a hard line with the SNP and the independence campaign.

In the possible event of Scottish independence then the rest of the UK should shut Scotland out in the cold. Scotland will have absolutely no rights to any free rides from the RUK.

Border checks. Stringent ones.

No currency union. Invent your own money.

No cooperation and agreement on sharing anything. Your independent, this is the reality.

Every asset of the UK than can be moved from Scotland should be moved.

It should push hard to ensure Scotland should have to start from as close to scratch as possible.

Use it's influence to ensure Scotland must re-apply to international organizations and such from the beginning. Full EU accession process. The works. If Scotland wants to go it alone it has to earn it like every other country.

Scotland should ideally be kept outside of NATO if the RUK can manage it.

No duel citizenship so that people who chose Scottish passports lose their UK ones.

It should also encourage as much business and talent to move from Scotland to the RUK, to boost the already inevitable tide of people and capital from the country southwards.


These suggestions aren't out of malice or spite but simple reality. If Scotland can't go it alone and survive entirely on it's own two feet then it doesn't deserve independence does it? The SNP's attempts to get independence knowing full well Scotland can't cope and prosper that way is treason, not to the queen or the UK, but to the people of Scotland.


Some of these things are insane. The majority of things that you listed sound completely out of spite and would destroy Scotland's relationship with the UK.
Original post by VladThe1mpaler
Some of these things are insane. The majority of things that you listed sound completely out of spite and would destroy Scotland's relationship with the UK.


It's funny, because it's people like him and that are encouraging more people to vote yes.

Latest