I have a question although it may be a bit of a hijack. Why are the independentists going to keep QE2 and not bring back the Stuarts and make a complete break?
QE2 is of Stuart lineage, being descended from James VI. See here.
Besides, the rest of the Commonwealth Realms have shown that is quite the bargain, to get an A-list monarch on the cheap.
Amongst other reasons it makes rewriting the laws much much simpler. The Crown is an important legal concept in both English / Wales law and Scottish law, and of course the crown as a legal entity is entirely different from her majesty herself. There are things which are owned by the crown but not by her majesty and vice versa. It’s a hell of a lot less work to just follow the lead of certain commonwealth countries and be independent while keeping “the crown” and her as head of state.
Just watch this CGP Grey video. It will make it all clear 
Skip to 2:30 for the bit on the crown
Why would they? Raises all the same religious issues as in 1688 all over again, and there’s potentially a bit more force behind them in Scotland than in England.
The Queen is still popular in Scotland; withdrawing from the UK while also establishing a republic would probably be too much for a non-negligible portion of the Scottish electorate.
As I wrote in the thread on the first referendum, I would, were I the British PM, advise Her Majesty not to accept a separate Scottish crown, and announce that ahead of time. No sense making Sturgeon’s job easier for her on that front.
People in Chicago talk about how they’ve waited 108 years for a World Series. The Chicago White Sox won the World Series in 2005. But, see, that’s the SOUTH side of town.
I cannot say with 100% certainty, but I am fairly sure that for the PM to do so would be seen as politically unacceptable. It’s unknown territory constitutionally for sure, but I think it would be perceived rightly as politicising the monarchy and using the Crown as a political weapon for the Government, which would Not Do.
It would be a courageous PM who raised that subject with Her Maj.
It’s one thing for the UK government to take the position that Scotland should stay in the union, and to make that case forcefully. It’s quite another for the UK government to say “we’ll fuck your shit up just because we can!”
Probably not the best idea constitutionally, as others have noted, and politically that approach doesn’t always work as intended.
Note also that Brenda as Queen of the UK is separately Queen of England and Queen of Scotland. Similarly, Charles is Prince of Wales and Duke of Rothesay. Great Britain is a union of kingdoms and thus crowns.
No. There is a single crown in the UK; she is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The separate English and Scottish crowns ceases to exist in 1707; the Irish crown (which was never really separate) in 1801.
Charles has the title “Prince of Wales” but that doesn’t give him any particular status or role in Wales that he doesn’t have elsewhere in the UK. Likewise his being Duke of Rothesay doesn’t impact Rothesay in any special way.
That’s not the stance the Westminster government took at the time of the last independence referendum, when a separate Scottish crown was part of the model of independence proposed by the Scottish government.
Plus, the Queen has accepted a number of separate crowns, on Ministerial advice, as former British possessions transitioned to independence. In light of those precedents, it would look particularly vindictive to advise her not to accept a Scottish crown, if offered.
Plus, it would almost certainly be counterproductive. However great the popularity of the Queen in Scotland, and however ardent the Scots’ monarchical sentiments, their feelings would be outraged by the idea of an English Prime Minister dictating who could, and who could not, be head of state of an independent Scotland. A Prime Minister who took such a stance publicly would simply be reminding the Scots of why they find nationalism appealing.
And the Queen would rightly tell him / her that it’s up to the Scottish people to decide and its a political question that she will not get involved in. She has already made her position on this clear with all the Commonwealth countries that kept her as head of state and more recently with regards to Australia / NZ becoming a republic. She has consistently said it’s the people’s choice and she will respect whatever decision is made, to keep her as head of state or not.
She will accept a Scottish crown if asked, just like she already accepted the Crown of Canada, Australia, NZ and all the other Commonwealth Realms.
Put aside whether or not it’s politically advisable for the British (not English) PM to offer such advice. The PM would be within the PM’s constitutional rights to advise the Queen (and that would be advice she must take) not to accept an independent Scottish crown. Every minute she spends on Scottish affairs is a minute she’s not spending on British affairs.
No one seriously thinks that if, say, the Apartheid-era South African regime had offered the Queen the crown of South Africa again, that she could have accepted it in the teeth of the opposition of the British government in London. I know of no instance where a British monarch accepted a foreign crown against the advice of HMG.
A major selling point for Scottish secessionism is that they’d keep the Queen. I would deny them that selling point.
Thereby giving them an even bigger selling point. Are you some kind of fifth columnist? 
So do you resent that she’s spending precious time as Queen of all the Commonwealth realms?
You’re comparing Scotland to South Africa under apartheid? Seriously if any PM was idiotic enough to try this, the Queen would ignore his / her advice, and that would cause a constitutional crisis, which in the circumstances would probably result in the current government being dissolved. You’re delusional if you think this could ever happen given her past history with the Commonwealth realms and her stated views on the matter.
I think HM’s private secretary would write to the PM’s private secretary to ask if the PM or his office could assure HM, in writing, that the proposal to advise her to decline a Scottish crown had been the subject of cross-party consultations, whether on Privy Council terms or through parliamentary mechanisms, and clearly commanded cross-party support in the Commons.
And there, I suspect, it would die.
It would because I think a majority of the UK public are not so petty that they’d try to stop Scotland leaving using such a tactic, if the referendum showed a clear desire. Also whichever party was in opposition at the time would decry it as a terrible idea. Absolutely no way it would get cross party support.
Well, OK, but I’m still not eating haggis.