“Inept dance”?
Every moment the Queen spends on Scottish matters is a moment she is not spending on British matters. It is a constitutional matter. The Prime Minister may advise Her Majesty on constitutional issues, including which crowns to keep and which to give up, and she must accept that advice.
And as you know, India and Ghana did not retain the British monarch as their head of state.
Perhaps you can provide a cite for advice the Queen accepts from her Scottish ministers now and after independence. The government of the UK cannot instruct the Queen on Australian and other matters. They have no power over membership of the Commonwealth to which Scotland would certainly be entitled. As a member of the Commonwealth they are at liberty to ask the Queen to remain monarch of Scotland.
You are engaging in neo-colonialist rhetoric without any factual backing.
It’s rather bizarre to characterize as “neo-colonialist” the idea that an independent country should not have another country’s head of state as their monarch.
Do you understand anything about the monarchy and how it is interpreted in various realms?
Was that because they chose not to, or because HMG refused to allow it?
The image of Her Maj and Alex Salmond communicating only through the medium of inept dance is one to treasure.
Damned auto correct.
On independence…
The Queen is not “another country’s head of state” - she is currently the head of state of Scotland and would, under the SNP proposal, remain so.
The point is that the Queen was the head of state of Canada prior to its independence and has remained so. Canadians could have (and indeed, still could) chosen someone else, a different constitutional arrangement, but the UK has no right to dictate this matter to Canada. Why would Scotland be any different?
The UK does not ‘provide’ Canada with a head of state. Canada chooses to recognise Elizabeth Windsor as the Queen of Canada. The Queen of Canada has no direct relationship with the current Prime Minister of the UK. Elizabeth Windsor also happens to be head of state in a different guise for several other countries for whom she is monarch. Separately she is also Head of the Commonwealth.
Only regarding her position as Queen of the United Kingdom does she receive advice from the Prime Minister of the UK. She is required to follow the will of Parliament in Westminster on UK matters, but on UK matters alone. She is not required to act on instruction of the UK parliament on her acts as a monarch of other realms.
PaulParkhead and Pjen, are you suggesting that the British PM would be powerless to prevent the Queen from accepting the crown of any country she was offered? The mind boggles. Disraeli got an imperial crown of India for Victoria; he could just have easily have taken it away, if Parliament thus voted.
If I were Cameron, I would loudly and often emphasize the many advantages of maintaining the United Kingdom with Scotland as an honored part of it, but I would also be clear as to what the Scots would be losing if they chose to go their own way. Of course they have the right to go their own way; I would sadly abide by the outcome of the vote. But I would not lift a finger, I would do nothing - as to Crown, currency, NATO, EU, border controls, treaty obligations, tariffs, aircraft overflight rights, etc. - to make it easier for Salmond & Co. to break up the union. They made their inept dance bed; they can lie in it.
Indeed I do. Have I implied that you are ignorant? Kindly do not do so about me.
The idea of Her Madg and Salmond doing an inept dance seems strangely compelling…
I can’t speak for Pjen - I am pointing out that the Queen is already Scotland’s HoS. Could Westminster interfere with that following independence? Not really, no more than Westminster can prevent her being Queen of Canada or Australia.
Aren’t there some Stuarts left around somewhere who can take the throne in a pinch?
I will give you an opportunity- provide cites for your beliefs then.
Cameron only advises the Queen in her role as Queen of the UK. She has separate relationships with governments and legislators in other realms. She is not advised by Cameron on Commonwealth affairs.
Let us start with wiki
The Monarchy of Australia is a form of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of Australia. Australia is a constitutional monarchy, modelled on the Westminster system of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia.
The present monarch is Elizabeth II, styled Queen of Australia, who has reigned since 6 February 1952. She is represented in Australia by the governor-general, in accordance with the Australian constitution and Letters Patent from the Queen.[1][2] In each of the states, the monarch is represented by a governor, appointed directly by the Queen on the advice of each of her respective state governments.
The Australian monarch, besides reigning in Australia, separately serves as monarch for each of 15 other Commonwealth countries known as Commonwealth realms. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, but they are now independent of each other and are legally distinct.
Hold on. I see to recall that whenever anybody calls Queen Elizabeth “Queen of England” on this board, people complain, saying that she isn’ Queen of England, She’s queen of the UK. IIt seems to me that as of right now, Scotland doesn’t have a Head of State. The UK, of which Scotland is now a part, is. If Scotland becomes independent, isn’t it up to the new Scottish government to invite her to become Queen or not and up to her, if they do, to say yes or no?
QEII is Queen of the UK. After independence Scotland will automatically be a member of the Commonwealth. The queen has remained as Monarch of many realms on their independence (even Pakistan and Sri Lanka for a time!) She will be Queen of Scots probably after independence (reflecting Scotland’s egalitarian monarchy.)
Cameron will have no role in this as QEII accepts advice from him only on UK matters. She accepts advice on the Commonwealth from the secretariat, and from her Prime Ministers in other realms.
I am surprised there is no talk of Scotland becoming a republic.
Of course they would need a President. Someone with a commanding presence on the world stage.
I am sure Sean Connery might do it if the price was right.
The SNP is at root a republican party, but felt that potential loss of the monarchy would militate against a YES vote.
Scots are less than keen on Scots who live abroad and choose not to return from time to time.