[SF-Junky]

The whole point of a currency union is that it only lasts over the short to medium term in order to limit the impact on trade.

?! 
What do you mean with that?

There are a number of examples where monetary unions or de facto monetary unions between a limited number of countries did work for quite a long time, take the Louxemburg-Belgium union for example or Austria-Germany in the 80s and 90s. In fact you could take the entire D-Mark block as a stable de facto monetary union. Anyway, it is totally understandable that people in the rest of UK are not very enthuastic about this idea.

Oh, and UK even now does have a substantial deficit in their trade balance.

[Gray113]

Short term currency union as proposed by the SNP in this circumstance - not in all through history . I can also understand why the population in the remainder of the UK would not like this situation,  especially in the manner it has been reported in the UK press (which is without exception pro union). This is one of the reasons that I would prefer to join the Euro as soon as possible.

Yes there is a substantial deficit already in place - this is why it would be silly for the  westminster government to make this even worse.

[karajorma]

There are lots of differing opinions in this debate Karajorma - The guy you met in a pub probably is not the best place to start

Who said that was where I was starting from? I was pointing out that there are Scots who don't want independence anywhere near as much as some people will claim. Especially once you start getting into the issue of the differences between the highlands and lowlands. Or the Shetland / Orkney Islands.

[MP-Ryan]

You also create a situation where there's a glass ceiling between citizens who are able to ascend to the highest offices, and citizens who aren't. In addition, a monarchy gets into trouble as soon as the succession is unclear; democracies have that part pretty well covered.

Historically, monarchies have been hilariously unstable and prone to a variety of failure conditions. That isn't to say democracies are perfect, as we're seeing right now, they're all too vulnerable to turning into oligarchies, but I nevertheless prefer them to systems that already start off as one.

I think you might be missing the point that Black Wolf is making - technically, the UK, Australia, Canada, etc are all constitutional monarchies with legislatures structured as parliamentary democracies.  Each of those countries has the Queen as their Head of State - who has no power whatsoever - while the government is entirely democratic.  And say what you will about day-to-day functioning, but on the whole each of those countries managed to be generally well-run.  Generally.

Frankly, I'm on the side of Canadians who want to abolish the role of the monarchy in our government and reform our existing system - I have no use for the monarchy whatsoever - but I can't deny that constitutional monarchies work, even if they aren't exactly ideal.

As for Scotland, from what I've read in the Yes Scotland campaign it appears they intend to stick with a system of government styled after the Westminster parliamentary system, and they've said they will retain ties to the monarchy, so a republic is not in the cards.

[karajorma]

Well one interesting point about a constitutional monarchy is that most of the military operates in the name of the monarch. I don't know about in the case of the commonwealth nations but I suspect that would function as a last line of defence against tyranny if it was ever needed. I suspect quite a few soldiers would ignore a tyrannical government in favour of the Queen / King if it ever came down to it. That's something you don't have in a system where a government can control all the branches.

The current monarch is just as much Scotlands as England's

She spends quite a bit of time there too. It's not like she never stays in the castles up there.

[Gray113]

I was pointing out that there are Scots who don't want independence anywhere near as much as some people will claim.

Yes you are right, that is exactly why I gave a list of some of the more prominent blogs and reports in the debate so people can see the points from both sides - unfortunetly the print and television media is pro-union so the majority of the internet forums tend to be pro-independence. Hence why the quality of nationalist blogging tends to be far superior.

Especially once you start getting into the issue of the differences between the highlands and lowlands. Or the Shetland / Orkney Islands.

The geographical differences are not all that great when it comes to the yes/no question. Some of the more remote regions are reported to be more likely to be in favor seen as they have been promised more autonomy in the event of independence whereas the industrial belt has a strong labour voting tradition (Labour are the main unionist party in Scotland). Polling however has shown steady figures across the board.

[Goober5000]

I have recently wondered what America would look like if we had a parliamentary Congress, all other things being equal.

[Mongoose]

If nothing else, C-SPAN would probably be a lot less boring.

[starbug]

I am Scottish, and I would like to see independence,  for the reasons that we would like to make our own choices about how to run our country instead of some numpties down in london. As they have now said that if we go it alone we cant keep the drjnk buckfizz??? Also cameron was to put up border controls and if I want to visit my family in england I will need my passport. Also our economy is in a far far better state than englands, most of the fuel and oil in england comes from us. So we could do it whether its the right thing to do I dont know

[Mars]

Primary resources don't necessarily mean a good, stable economy.

[Flipside]

Yup, considering the rise of Fracking and other techniques, the price of North Sea Hydrocarbons may not be quite as stable as first thought, especially considering there are plans for an Oil Fund based on that resource as well. It can either be spent or be saved, but if the price fluctuates too much, it cannot be both.

I suppose in summary, I would say that Scotland as a country would benefit from more autonomy (though not necessarily full Independence), however, I'm a long way from convinced the SNP, with their own axe to grind with Westminster, are really the best people to be organizing the terms for that autonomy, it's getting more and more about vendettas on both sides than about Scotland and England as modern societies.

[butter_pat_head]

I can't remember where I heard this but oceanic national borders extend out in the general direction of the land border (I could be completely wrong about this).  If this is true then considering that the border between England and Scotland starts at the top of Cumbria and extends roughly North-East then a sizeable chunk of the North Sea would be in English waters.  Scotland may end up with not as many of those hydrocarbons as they thought they would...