#1 By: Rob Beschizza, December 4th, 2013 09:58
#2 By: Old, December 4th, 2013 10:14
Suddenly I'm craving a Mountain Dew.
#3 By: Jim Saul, December 4th, 2013 10:19
What happens to all the land the royal family owns in Scotland? Will they at least start paying normal taxes?
#4 By: Liam Kennedy, December 4th, 2013 10:21
the proposed independent Scotland would be keeping the royal family and the pound, so I doubt the Queen has much to worry about.
#5 By: Mo_in_Berlin, December 4th, 2013 10:21
No, the union jack is in no way "sexy".
The union jack hurts.
As a New Zealander its presence on my flag reminds me that some foreign British lady, called a "Queen" is legally empowered to remove my democratically elected government.
And she wasn't even born in NZ.
Rob B, sorry to get very briefly personal, but are you having an off day?
Just hours ago you also deleted one of the top two countries for transparency: New Zealand.
(BTW, here's one link to when that woman removed the Australian government.
[Foreign woman's Aussie representative boots out Australian government in 1975]
#6 By: John Sawyer, December 4th, 2013 10:48
Umm no. The Australian Governer General saw fit to remove the government because the Senate wouldn't pass the supply bills. The Queen did nothing other than not oppose her representative excercising her power.
Whether the decision to do that was right or wrong has nothing to do with the Queen and to say such is disengenuous.
Whitlam's governments fall had nothing to do with the Queen.
Australia has a written constitution which allows for that action. The Queen could be removed as head of state and this power could still be excercised.
I know plenty of republicans in the last referenda who didn't care a fig about the flag.
#7 By: Jason Lane, December 4th, 2013 10:53
Erm, you do realise that the 'Queen' doesn't really have those powers. She is a figure head, that is all. I'd like to see her try and exercise any of the remaining powers she still has. I think the reality would be that the UK would simply ignore her.
#8 By: Jason Lane, December 4th, 2013 10:57
hmmm, don't think so, especially the pound, I was under the impression that parliament had made that clear.
#10 By: Alan Goulding, December 4th, 2013 11:01
Yay! What's the point in having a queen if you can't wield arbitrary power over countries the other side of the globe? Seems like a waste of tax-payers money otherwise. Long may it continue!
Seriously though, you are proper deluded if you think that could/would ever happen. Feel free to worry about it though. It's quite funny.
#11 By: Jonathan Roberts, December 4th, 2013 11:04
With Irish independence almost 100 years old, what will happen to the British flag?
#12 By: Tim Stellmach, December 4th, 2013 11:08
The British royal family are monarchs of Scotland in their own right, not by virtue of also happening to be the monarchs of England (ever since the accession to the English throne of James VI, King of Scots). Scotland is unlike the Commonwealth nations in that respect. There's no reason I know of to suppose that political reorganization between England and Scotland would in itself affect that in any way.
#13 By: Buddha Buck, December 4th, 2013 11:13
The pre-Irish version of the Union Jack did not integrate the Cross of St. Patrick. It just had the St. Andrews Cross supplanted by St. George's cross. The UK didn't revert back to that flag with Irish independence because they still claim Northern Ireland (it went from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to "...and Northern Ireland").
The cleanest result of a Scottish-UK split would be for the flag to simply become white with two red crosses; St. Patrick's Cross supplanted by St.George's cross. Essentially, it would eliminate the blue and widen the diagonal red stripes.
#14 By: Jason Lane, December 4th, 2013 11:23
My only concern is that it will be designed by committee http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e8kk5tk8hobk8vxz/results
And look something like this:
and flags are important because:
#15 By: Professor Polymath, December 4th, 2013 11:28
I may be misreading you, but I think you're mistaken with respect to the status of the monarch in Commonwealth countries vs. Scotland. In Canada, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada. She also happens to live in London and be the Queen of some other countries, but is monarch of Canada in her own right. The role will pass to her successor until we abolish all this.
#16 By: Jonathan Roberts, December 4th, 2013 11:30
I would either introduce St. David's flag and basically have this with a black background instead of the blue, or choose a completely new and unrelated flag.
#17 By: Jason Lane, December 4th, 2013 11:31
'They' are German (House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha)... Pfff! crazy world we live in.
#18 By: toyg, December 4th, 2013 11:39
Well, I guess a country could still use someone else's currency if they wanted to, like Argentina did with the US dollar to disastrous effects… Which is why in practice nobody does it, because you effectively end up in the hands of someone else's economy.
An independent Scotland would likely join the Euro right away or risk ending up with a heavily-devalued banana-currency. On this topic Salmond is just being disingenuous and he knows it.
#19 By: toyg, December 4th, 2013 11:39
That reminds me of Spain. Maybe it will help English footballers improve their dribbling, who knows.
#20 By: toyg, December 4th, 2013 11:42
Abandoning the blue would basically symbolise that the Crown renounces any right on Scotland. Not gonna happen.
#21 By: Ibrahim, December 4th, 2013 11:45
While we're on this topic... why not the United Queendom? Seems more current is all.
next page →