. . . short of money.
There hasn’t been a separate Scottish state since 1707. The last one was a kingdom. Scotland is now part of a kingdom, but that doesn’t necessarily indicate anything one way or another about whether it prefers monarchical or republican forms of government. Scotland doesn’t get a say, one way or another, on that. Scottish nationalist may or may not be republican but, if they are, campaigning for a republic wouldn’t be their first priority. They campaign for autonomy or independce; an independent Scotland can then decide whether it wants to be a monarchy or a republic.
For the record, in the recent Scottish independence referendum, the proposal was an interim constitution to establish the new Scottish state as a monarchy, followed by a process for drafting a permanent constitution for the new state which might or might not be monarchical. By suspicion is that the proposal to retain the monarchy pro tem was driven not so much by devotion to the monarchy as by a desire not to complicate the independence referendum by wrapping a vote on the monarchy into it.
The (entirely hypothetical) scenario we’re looking at here involves:
(a) a constitutional crisis in the UK because of the refusal of the monarch to accept the advice of (UK) ministers; followed by
(b) action by the UK parliament to abolish the monarchy and reconsitute the UK as a republic.
Would the Scots be pissed off by this? Would they think “We want to be a monarchy? We’ll secede from the UK, establish a Scottish kingdom, and invite the ex-king of the UK to become king of Scotland!”?
Possibly they would. Since we’re in completely hypothetical territory, we can hypothesise what we like. But what the Scots would feel in that circumstance would of course be course be coloured by the details of the constitutional crisis, so how the real-world Scots feel about the monarchy today, even if we knew it, might not be all that relevant. But my gut feeling is that the Scottish political establishment might not be wildly keen on establishing a monarchy with a ex-monarch who lost their previous gig on account of their refusal to accept the advice of ministers with a democratic mandate. They might also not be keen to take on board a monarch who had a turbulent history with the neighbouring British state.
Would they offer the gig to Anne? She might not take it. Even if she would, they would think twice before offering it. Whatever her sterling personal qualities, a decision to offer it to her is also a decision to offer it in succession to Peter Phillips, an Englishman with English children who lives and works (in sports sponsorship) in England. He has no connections to Scotland, beyond having a great-grandmother who was born there, and no particular qualifications or experience which fit him to be a constitutional monarch. He has always avoided carrying out royal duties, and there is no indication that he wants the gig.
The UK dumping the monarchy might be the tipping point for Scotland; they might leave because, once again, a matter of fundamental importance for Scotland is being decided elsewhere. But, having left, I really don’t see a new Scottish monarchy being a plausible scenario.
Nope. The relevant New Zealand legislation (the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988) simply says the the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, etc, “are hereby declared to be part of the laws of New Zealand” but there is nothing to qualify this by saying that e.g. references to England, Britain or the UK are taken to be references to New Zealand. So the position is that there’s a law of New Zealand that purports to regulate succession to the crown of the UK. And the effect, if any, that that law might have at a time when there is no crown of the UK is, to say the least, doubtful.
Almost certainly not. She may have stuck by sundry official duties as part of the family business but she made a point of refusing royal titles for her husband and children, and they’ve got their own lives and careers and don’t feature in state occasions. Plus there’d be the whole question of family loyalties as well as the general political viability of the whole proposition. It’d be more than understandable if she said “Sod this, I’ll stick to horses, thanks”.
How come Ireland and Scotland get all the sexy headlines about independence? Why don’t the Welsh ever speak of independence?
OK, well “re-established”, or “saved”, or “strengthened” then. Pick a word.
There was a dust-up in the late twenties over some changes to a prayer book. Parliament stuck their fingers in, and refused to approve the changes. I remember because it was the birth of Disestablishmentarianism (the “anti-” of which was a popular spelling challenge of my youth). Many in the Church were arguing to sever the control of the Government over theological matters, and some over the Church entirely.
George V and C.G. Lang (new Archbishop of Canterbury) worked very hard to negotiate the issue, maintain the ties, and strengthen the role of the Monarch over that of Parliament, or some such thing. I’ve forgotten now what the final compromise was. It was considered a great achievement of George’s anyway that he held on to the role. And there was much talk about what the monarchy would be useful for, if that role had been abolished.
Plaid Cymru is a Welsh political party which advocates for a soverign Wales, independent of the UK, within the European Union.
In the 2015 UK General Election, they won 15.3% of the vote in Wales and, under the quaint British electoral system, this got them 3 out of 40 Welsh seats in the House of Commons.
At the last elections for the Welsh Assembly, which were in 2011, they won 19.3% of the constituency vote and 17.9% of the regional vote, and ended up with 11 out of 60 seats.
The highest share of the Welsh vote they have ever achieved was 29.6% in the 1999 European Parliament elections.
So, yes, there’s a non-trivial independence movement in Wales, but it hasn’t so far enjoyed anything like the success of the Scottish Nationalist Party
If only we could get something like this started in Texas. Good riddance. 
I thought Wales and England were much more strongly joined in some political and/or legal aspects than Scotland with them together and Northern Ireland with the lot. Is that movement fairly new, inspired by other regions of the UK?
The referendum said "we want to be independent, but while we work on our next move still want
a) you, Queen Elizabeth?
b) Somebody different, perhaps a son of the soil, Sean Connery, say, who we’ll crown as soon as we’re able?
Because I don’t know how to say chutzpah in Scottish (and in fact Scots can get their throat around that quite well), but choice a) certainly seems to show it. The country would say “f* you, GB” and still keep her…
I guess all Commonwealth countries did that, and it doesn’t seem to hurt her feelings. Brits and all the other ex-colonies except one are weird. Better put, most obviously, the Americans are weird.
Wales has been politically subject to England for much longer than Scotland or Ireland and, legally and adminstratively, was and remains more closely integrated.
Culturally, though, in some ways its more distinct from England than Scotland or Nothern Ireland. The Welsh language, for example, is probably in a much healthier condition than Scots Gaelic or Irish, in terms of being regularly used by a significant chunk of the populace.
Plaid Cymru was founded in the 1920s, but it remained a very marginal political force until the 1960s or 1970s.
No, it was to be Betty. There was no other proposal on the table.
And, as you point out, there’s plenty of precedent for former dependencies of the UK to become independent states, but with Betty (nominally, and often temporarily) at the top. It doesn’t stretch credibility too much to imagine that happening in a country that was not a dependency of the UK, but actually a part of it.
(Come to think of it, that’s pretty much what happened in the Irish Free State.)