Kingdom there means ‘State’. The Crowns were made one at the UNION of the Crowns in 1603, and although there were two coronations, there was only a single kingdom.
No. It was two kingdoms in personal union under one king. They shared a monarch, but each had its own paliament, own laws, own government and so on. The only time this wasn’t true was during the Commonwealth, and, for instance, Charles Ii was (contentiously), King of Scotland for a time, when he wouldn’t become king of England ore Ireland for another eleven years.
The timing is supposed to be after the Brexit negotiations, but before the actual exit. That’s exactly what Nicola Sturgeon said.
Well the way Scotland would intend to go about that would be to join EFTA. There was talk of the whole UK doing that, but Norway is unhappy with the idea as it feels the UK would be too large and disruptive.
Because the idea is to never leave the single market, but go seamlessly from EU membership to EFTA membership. Obviously this is very important for any business that depends on the single market. They can’t just wait 6 months to see how things work out. This was discussed in the video I linked; did you watch it?
Why would a single kingdom need two coronations?
But she is in no position to know when that time will be.
There is no guarantee that the negotiations will finish on time, nor that the ramifications of those negotiations will be clear in time for any referendum set in stone now.
One option of many, the implications, ramifications and attractiveness of which are highly dependent on the Brexit negotiation outcomes.
There will be no immediate withdrawal from the E.U. it is in no-ones interest. Scotland will have plenty of time to hold a referendum, if they wish, after the negotiations have concluded and before the UK leaves the E.U. fully. At which point a fully informed decision can be made.
People talk as if the two-year timeline is set in stone, it isn’t. It could drag on for years and the resulting relationship that the UK will have with the E.U. may not fully unfold until well past Sturgeon’s preferred date and all the while single market access and benefits remain.
I know why she’s doing it, it makes her seem strong and the real unknown for her is that, the more she waits, the more there is a chance of a live-able deal being struck between the EU and UK. She calculates that not knowing the full facts will bring more people to the independence side. If you preach apocalypse and it doesn’t turn out that way then it is difficult to row back from that.
The other reason to do it early is because of all the other unknown unknowns. Remember what Harold Macmillan said when asked what he feared most as a politician?
“events dear boy, events”
So yes it is logical from her political point of view, in terms of actually offering the Scottish people all the relevant information I’m afraid it is sadly lacking.
I admire your tenacity on this, but why exactly do events of 3 or 4 centuries ago have any relevance to these discussions?
All bets are off, all precedents are null and void because, as with the E.U. negotiations, we have not been here before in modern times.
An exact replica of the dissolution of Scotland and the UK can not be found and everyone will be making this up as they go along. There will be discussions and compromise on all sides and the only precedent worth considering is that modern first world nations pretty much always come to workable arrangements and I see no reason why The Scotland/UK and EU/UK issues won’t follow the same path.
Not perfect, but pragmatic.
Good point!
March 29th, 2019. That’s the date the UK officially leaves the EU.
If we’re leaving the EU and they haven’t even completed the negotiations, then that’s an issue all of its own.
Says you. Theresa May appears to disagree. And, again, it needs to be sorted before March 29th, 2019.
It pretty much is, unless we want to cancel Article 50. Can you seriously see Theresa May doing that?
I would say that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are politically strong. They’re miles ahead of every other party in Scotland. Except in council seats, I guess, where they’re only a little ahead. Guess what the polls predict for the local elections in May?
If we don’t have the information when we’re supposed to actually leave…that’s not a good situation to stay in that process.
[QUOTE=Novelty Bobble]
People talk as if the two-year timeline is set in stone, it isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
No. There is an extension option in Article 50. It doesn’t have to be cancelled.
Ah, true, I had missed that.
I’m not convinced it makes a massive difference practically though: if May tries to stall, the euro-sceptics in the Conservative party will probably throw her out. That’s assuming she can even get the EC to agree to it and they don’t just want rid of the UK asap. Which, frankly, I think they do.
I don’t know. Two years is a lot of time. I wouldn’t be that confident predicting that the euro-skeptics will want or have the juice to oust her if she goes for an extension when the deadline looms.
What I was trying to say is that a Yes vote on a referendum seems much more binding than a No vote. When a referendum passes, it usually puts the issue to rest for a while. When it doesn’t pass, those who were in favor of it start working towards the next referendum on the same topic as soon as the votes are counted.
It’s not really a matter for May or the eurosceptics. An extension requires the consent not just of the UK but of the European Council - all 27 members. (It has to be unanimous consent of the Council.) The early signals from the EU are that they don’t want this process to drag on, and you could see why that makes a lot of sense from the perspective of the EU. So there’d need to be the prospect of some significant advantage accruing to the Union from an extension of the process before we can realistically envisage the process being extended by any great amount of time.
No, there were two distinct crowns until 1707, though both were held by the one person from 1603. Indeed, part of the political motivation behind for the Union in 1707 was that the Scottish and English Parliaments had enacted different succession legislation (in 1701 and 1704 respectively). The Scottish legislation provided that on the death of Queen Anne the crown of Scotland was to pass to someone (to be chosen by the Estates of Scotland) who was not also the English sovereign. So, there were definitely two distinct crowns and two distinct kingdoms.
I wonder who would be head of state for a resurgent Kingdom of Scotland?
Queen Elizabeth or someone form the Uks royal house would seem the most probable candidates, but Scotland may want to distance itself from the rUK, and make a tie to some other nation.
I’ve thought about that lately. When the notion of the UK rejoining the EFTA first came up, both the leaders of the opposition and the government parties in Norway reacted like someone had suggested to sell their children. The phrase “then national interest” was broken out, something you normally hear from a Norwegian politician about as often as you hear an American one say “I think we could learn a lot from socialist countries, actually”
Now, this was because the UK would be quite dominant in the EFTA, and as they explained, the UKs interests are quite different from those of Norway, and in some cases diametrically opposed.
However, in my amateur opinion this does not seem to be the case with Scotland. It is a far more manageable size, and it seems that a North Sea country with oil and fishing interests might align quite well.
Also, you’d want to make an effort to make them get off the ground well, because you want stable, prosperous, wealthy neighbors and trading partners. Rather than the alternative.
My guess would be that the EFTA option would be open to Scotland.
The proposal from the Scottish Government is that in the first instance independent Scotland would be a monarchy with Queen Elizabeth as the monarch - Scotland will be a Commonwealth Realm, like Canada or Barbados, and this state of affairs will continue for as long as the people of Scotland wish it to.
There will, however, be a constitutional convention convened, to debate and draft a long-term constitution for Scotland, and in that context the form of government would obviously be up for discussion. Historically, most countries which have become Commonwealth realms on independence from the UK have in due course transitioned to being republics, so it’s entirely possible that Scotland would do so as well.
I can’t think of any plausible scenario in which Scotland would be a monarch with a monarch other than the British monarch. The only plausible reason for creating (or reviving, if you prefer) a Scottish monarchy is to retain the connection to the British crown for historical and political reasons.
Well. I think nations that separate from other nations generally orient themselves away from the parent nation. Else citizens may ask what the point was. Scotland in particular is keen to join the Nordic nations. And they are mostly monarchies. Three-fifths and up, depending on whom you count.
Its also been pointed out that Scotland by nature leans more towards a Northern European nation than the UK as a whole.
Also, when reestablishing a nation after a long period, I believe connecting it to its previous incarnations is perceived to add legitimacy.
Finally, an independent Scotlands neighbors are mainly going to be monarchies. Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, England/Wales. The republics are going to be Ireland and Iceland. About 5 million people in total, equal to about Norway.
I would be surprised if a leaving Scotland left as anything but the Kingdom of Scotland, a continuation of the old kingdom of Scotland. I agree that a monarch from outside the UK royal family is implausible, but “implausible” does not have the credibility it did a year ago, and there are reasons for different choices.
I doubt that Scotland’s affinity with the Nordic nations is based on a shared preference for monarchy. Except for UK possessions becoming Commonwealth realms, I can’t think when was the last occasion on which a newly independent state adopted a monarchical constitution. Jordan? Oman? The various emirates of the U.A.E.?There’s no great affinity with Scotland there and, besides, in those cases the new monarch was an existing hereditary rule raised to the status of king/emir.
No, to my mind the only plausible models for an independent Scotland are (a) a Commonwealth realm or (b) a republic. I think (a) is on balance more likely but, if it were to be (b), I can’t see that as in any way being an impediment to Scotland identifying/associating with the Nordic nations or its other neighbours.
Ditto on all counts. I was amused by the Norwegian government’s reaction when somebody aired the thought of Great Britain joining the EEA. “Wait, what?! No. Nononono!” As close to a moment of panic as I’ve ever seen from them.
And Scotland the EEA makes sense, though to me it makes less sense than just joining the EU in full. (For a EU-positive country.) Norway has to rubberstamp most of EU’s legislation without any real way to influence it. It’s kind of a weird halfway house - but Scotland’s welcome in it, if that’s where they want to be.
I think the suggestion is that it would be a transitional thing; it would keep them in close association with the EU, and with many of the benefits of membership, until such time as they could (re)join as full members. Austria, Finland and Sweden all participated in the EEA as part of their progress towards full membership of the Union.