I Support Scotland!

[superblue]

The crown has always offered independence to it's countries in the commonwealth at some time or another. She offered australia her independende about 15 years ago but the majority of australians voted to stay on the mothers breast so to speak. :)

 

 

It is probably a dishonest offer to begin with, the offer of independence in one hand, and behind the back in the otherh and is a knife waiting. But if they sit there and cry about wanting independence and do not take the offer, then the cry wasn't true to begin with it would be better to take the offer and take ones chances on the honesty of the offer, But what ever Australia has more things to worry about with Japan than the crown.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And superblue i doubt the crown has manipulated the vote count in scotland, though it is possible it is doubtful, she offers the independance to each commonwealth country at varying times and the people get to vote for independance, though perhaps with N.I, wales and scotland it may be different, i don't know. But i'm glad the scots got to vote. It may come up again in X amount of years time, as will australias, unsure if new zealand has ever had a vote for independance from the crown yet though. And canada was granted independance ages ago.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I wonder what the US would look like if 90% of the population voted.

 

It wouldn't just affect the U.S in a good way but it would affect the whole world. I assume more people used to vote in the U.S, but video and radio killed the soap box star. Who want's to stay up to date with the political tide of ones nation when you can numb your brain with entertainment and fantasy and forget the real world exists.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[marigold]

Yeah, there is no way the vote was fixed. I would witness to that in court. The only thing even on that continuum was that a bunch of people out on the islands had to vote by post a few days beforehand and then said they had changed their minds by the time referendum day dawned. I think there was a big upswing for the Yes side at the last minute because of the silly way the Nos were behaving - having politicians weeping on TV and promising all sorts of things like the last stages of a breakup: 'It can be an open relationship!' etc. :)

[hoosieranna]

The crown has always offered independence to it's countries in the commonwealth at some time or another. She offered australia her independende about 15 years ago but the majority of australians voted to stay on the mothers breast so to speak. :)

 

For clarity's sake, Australia is already independent.  There was a referendum about becoming a republic, which would remove the queen as head of state.  The status of the queen was the only thing that might have changed.
 

Edit:  NZ is an independent country as well.  Both have similar statuses as Canada.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Nadezhda

[puellapaschalis]

For clarity's sake, Australia is already independent.  There was a referendum about becoming a republic, which would remove the queen as head of state.  The status of the queen was the only thing that might have changed.
 

Edit:  NZ is an independent country as well.  Both have similar statuses as Canada.

 

I thought the only difference between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and Canada on the other were that the former - now I was told this by an Ozzie, please don't get mad at me - were 'officially' still colonies, and that the latter was a self-governing dominion. This difference also explained the absence of the union jack in the countries' flags. Is there any credence in that (anymore)?
 

ETA: Of course practially this distinction is cosmetic; I don't see Canada being any more able to govern herself than Australia, or New Zealand, or even smaller places like the Falklands (difference in size and economies and bully boy crybaby tactics from certain neighbours notwithstanding).

Edited September 20, 2014 by puellapaschalis

[hoosieranna]

I thought the only difference between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and Canada on the other were that the former - now I was told this by an Ozzie, please don't get mad at me - were 'officially' still colonies, and that the latter was a self-governing dominion. This difference also explained the absence of the union jack in the countries' flags. Is there any credence in that (anymore)?
 

ETA: Of course practially this distinction is cosmetic; I don't see Canada being any more able to govern herself than Australia, or New Zealand, or even smaller places like the Falklands (difference in size and economies and bully boy crybaby tactics from certain neighbours notwithstanding).

 

Not mad.  Here's what I know.  The UK parliament's ability to legislate on behalf of the Commonwealth was largely eliminated by the Statute of Westminter in 1931.

 

The Australia Act of 1986 eliminated any ability Westminster had to legislate on behalf of Australia.  The High Court, in 2003, recognized this as the country's independence date.

 

The Canada Act of 1982 ended the UK's involvement in and ability to amend the Canadian constitution.

 

The New Zealand Constitution Act of 1986 ended Westminster's ability to legislate on behalf of New Zealand's parliament.

 

The queen assented to the acts in her role as queen of each of the separate countries, separate from her role as queen of the United Kingdom.

 

I don't much care about Argentina.  I have differing views about self-governance, but put those down to my background.  Some of this I knew but the rest I had to revisit.  Thanks for the research opportunity (social science nerd)!