That wouldn’t really work with the bulk of the Scottish electorate. Cameron represents a party that, in Westminster seats, has only a toe-hold in Scotland. The most visible politician for the “No” campaign is Alistair Darling, a Labour politician, and the last Chancellor of the last Labour Westminster government.
The “Yes” policy is for the Queen to be Queen of Scots post indy - a reversion to a former state of affairs.
No, because the Union of Crowns of 1603 will still be in effect. It’s the Acts of Union of 1706 & 1707 that will be repealed.
Heh, that was to avoid more Better Together scare-mongering, I assume.
Really? You’re English. Yet you feel you speak for Scots?
You can’t require the Queen to be Queen against her will. She would have to consent to it, and as is her policy, she hasn’t made any statement either way.
Sure, she would have to agree to remain Queen of Scotland. But Westminster could not prevent that if she chose to do so.
I guess she might not want to be Queen of Scots, but that seems a bit unlikely to be honest.
He has also lived in the US.
I can imagine an English emigre teaching Americans the finer points of patriotic expression and the nuances of their Constitution would have gone down very well.
There is probably enough material for an episode of the Simpsons.
The Scots are indeed blessed to have such fund of wisdom in their midst to help compose their arguments about national destiny and find reasons to blame their misfortunes on those contemptible people south of the border.
:rolleyes:
Emigration is a wonderful thing.
The British PM can’t advise the Queen (i.e. tell her what she must do) as to Canadian, Australian or New Zealand affairs, true. But he can advise her - or get a bill passed by Parliament, to which she must assent - to relinquish a crown anywhere, or to decline a crown now offered to her. It is a constitutional issue and she must take such advice.
Consider the alternative. If the Queen were offered the crown of (a) a country with which the UK was locked in a bitter trade dispute, or (b) a genocidal police state with which the UK had broken off diplomatic ties, or © a country with which the UK was actually at war, would the PM really have no right to advise her as to whether or not to accept it? And remember, “It would never happen” is no fit answer to a question of principle.
Bagehot said a modern British monarch had three rights: “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.” He said nothing as to keeping, or taking, a crown in the teeth of ministerial advice.
But she isn’t really “accepting” the crown. It’s already hers.The PM could advise her to renounce it but I doubt he will and not absolutely positive she’d have to follow that particular piece of advice if he did. ISTM that’s out of the PM’s jurisdiction.
A bill in the UK parliament requiring her to relinquish the Canadian crown would be pointless, as the Canadian constitution absolutely prohibits UK legislation from having effect there.
Although I imagine something similar did come up when Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence. For a few years, the Rhodesian government maintained that Elizabeth II was the Queen of Rhodesia, but I don’t think she ever accepted any role there.
No. The British Parliament cannot advise the Queen to relinquish the throne of Canada. That is a matter for Canadians to decide, and if the Queen were to relinquish the throne of Canada, she would only do so on the advice of her Canadian ministers.
The Crown
The British Queen is not Scotland’s head of state. Scotland doesn’t have a head of state. Right now, Scotland is not a state. There is no Scottish state for anyone to head.
Nor is she “Queen of Scotland” (or “Queen of Scots”, which was the historic title). This office has long ceased to exist, so no-one can fill it.
If Scotland becomes a state, it can have a head of state and, if the Scots so choose, she can fill that office. Note that in that event she would not remain Scottish head of state; she would become Scottish head of state. It is, however, unthinkable that she would do so without the assent of her UK ministers, and probably of the UK parliament, if only because her doing so has implications for the foreign relations of the UK. But that assent would, I think, be readily forthcoming. Note that she has received UK parliamentary sanction to her assumption of the crown of all the new Commonwealth realms that have been come into existence during her reign.
Citizenship
Pjen cites the European Convention on Nationality to argue that new Scots citizens cannot be deprived of British citizenship except with their agreement. He overlooks, however, the fact that the UK has neither signed nor ratified that Convention. They are not a party to it. It does not apply to them, or bind them, or restrict in any way what they do.
In any event, the Convention does contain language which could allow the loss of citizenship when part of a state is split off to become a new state. Under Article 7.1.e a state may deprive someone of nationality where he habitually resides abroad (e.g. in Scotland) and where he lacks A “genuine link” with the state of nationality. So a British citizen residing in Scotland, who wasn’t born in rUK and doesn’t have parent or grandparent born in rUK could be seen as not having the “genuine link” with rUK that would entitle him to retain its nationality. And this would enable him to be treated exactly as British Citizens residing in other Commonwealth realms on independence were treated.
Pjen also cites Rottman, but Rottman is only authority for the proposition that a state may withdraw citizenship obtained by naturalisation on the basis of fraudulent representations or submissions (even if this leads or may lead to statelessness). At no point does Rottman suggest that citizenship may not be withdrawn in any other circumstance. On the contrary, it underlines that in general citizenship of a Member State is determined by the national law of that Member State.
Hold on, is it? Queen of Scotland isn’t one of her titles, nor Queen of Scots, nor any other such formulation. It seems to me that the title of “King of Scotland” (and “King of England”) were extinguished by the Act of Union. If the vote passes and the Act of Union is abolished, those titles are restored, and while she’s certainly the obvious choice for Queen of Scotland, it’s a restored title, not an existing one.
Plus, the Scottish Parliament never passed the Act of Settlement in 1701. In fact, it’s resistance to the Act of Settlement, and English pressure due to that resistance, was one of the things that led to the Act of Union in the first place. So, is hypothetically independent Scotland bound by it? Will it be a law in force in Scotland? Is the rightful monarch the Bavarian pretender? If this keeps up, will we see a union of the thrones of Scotland and Lichtenstein?
Admittedly, I diverged into a flight of fancy there, but you see my point? An independent Scotland will be a new thing, and we don’t know yet what will happen. Would Elizabeth become Queen of Scots? Probably. Would the British PM stop her? Probably not. But we don’t know any of this for sure, and it’s arrogance to assume that we already know all the answers.
If it follows the pattern of other Commonwealth realms, I think the initial Scottish constitution would be part of an act of Parliament or order-in-council anyways, so her UK ministers would have direct control over what it said. She’d never have to get their assent because they’d only present something to her if it was at least palatable to them.
Well, if the Irish precedent is followed, the initial Scottish constitution mught be scheduled, in identical terms, both to an Act of the Westminster Parliament and to an Act of the Scottish Parliament which might either enact the constitution, or provide for it to be enacted by referendum. The courts of each country could then treat their own national legislation as foundational.
But of course the constitution is scheduled in identical terms only because the two executive governments have agreed on its text. So the reality is that the initial Scottish constitituion is a text negotiated and settled between the UK and Scottish governments. And, it follows, the Queen will never be asked to accept the Scottish throne unless both the UK and Scottish governments are minded to advise to to accept it.
Correct - on advice of her British PM. Good catch. See Robert Lacey’s *Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II. *
I spend all my time with Scots. I watch TV here and read the newspapers, I banter with people, we discuss things.
I am entitled to my opinion based on real experience. Place of birth does not confer any special privileges. Now if I was vacationing here that would be difficult, but I have lived here for over a decade. Sufficient time I think to give some idea about what people around me think.
The Queen will be most keen to remain monarch. She spends each summer in Scotland by choice. Her mother was the Daughter of the Earl of Strathmore. Refusing to be monarch when she has previously been monarch of many far flung realms would be unbelievable. She will make this decision herself, not on the advice of the UK Prime Minister. I cannot see her deciding ‘NO’.