This is a very interesting suggestion. Not only would this be the second time that the undisputed reigning English monarch was married to the monarch of a different country, but it would be the second time that it happened to someone named Philip.
Then you get Charles, and then who, Harry? :eek:
The only way the SNP is likely to reject Elizabeth as head of state is if they retain the terms of their original constitution; namely, that Alex Salmond becomes president rather than prime minister.
Otherwise, it’s whoever they name. If they want to retain the Jacobite succession, I suppose it’s Franz of Bavaria. Otherwise - they’re an independent nation, they can name who they like!
If I were British PM, doing my best to discourage secession, I wouldn’t make it easy for them. I’d say that, if Scotland went its separate way, I would advise the Queen and her heirs not to agree to serve as Scottish monarch (and she would have to take my “advice”). I’d also say they’d be on their own for currency, national defense, passports, embassies overseas, etc., and that EU membership, airplane overflight rights and border crossings would all have to be negotiated anew.
The pro-independence Scots can’t have their cake and eat it too.
And if they retained maternal succession, we would eventually have the entertainment value of Liechtenstein and Scotland sharing a head of state.
And then, a hundred years on, they’ll form a United Kingdom, and three hundred years on we’ll be right back where we started, with Liechtenstein turning a merger into an act of colonialism and spitefully refusing to let them go.
No, she wouldn’t.
In 1701 the English Parliament passed the Act of Settlement, settling the succession of the English crown on Sophia, Electress of Hanover and the heirs of her flesh, being Protestants. This had the effect of excluding from the succession a large number of people whose dynastic claim was stronger than Sophia’s but who were Catholics, and also any (at the time, hypothetical) descendants of Sophia who were Catholics (or, for good measure who married Catholics). It was by virtue of this Act that, on the death of Anne, George I came to the throne.
The Scottish Parliament never passed a similar Act. In fact, in 1704 it passed an Act pointing out that the matter of succession to the throne of Scotland was a matter for the Parliament of Scotland.
Had the Union not occurred in 1707, and had the Parliament of Scotland not in the meantime passed its own law to regulate the succession, under Scottish law on the death of Anne in 1714 the person with the strongest claim to succession would have been the Old Pretender, James Francis Stuart, the eldest son of James VII of Scotland.
Admittedly, I was thinking purely in terms of Philip’s ‘I don’t give a toss’ attitude and the wonderful quotes that would result.
Queen Liz is titular head of state of rather a lot of other countries already, eg. Canada, New Zealand Australia etc.
And while the queen usually does do what the PM tells her to, I’m pretty sure this is one situation where she would not.
One of The Bay City Rollers or Donnie Trump.
If Scotland busts out could they still hold The British Open at St. Andrews?
They’d have to call it the Great Britain International Open. 
Haha at the Donald Trump. 
He has trumped away in a bad temper because he thought no-one ought to be allowed to build a wind farm within view of his bloody golf course/hotel thingy. He did sulk sulk sulk to the power of ten and basically is not pleased with Scotland at all. Oh dear, how sorely he will be missed.
Now Ireland has the pleasure of putting up with him. He might not find things good there either.
One of my favorite House quotes of all time:
House: You Brits are all alike.
Chase: I’m Australian.
House: You put the Queen on your money, you’re British.
You’re probably as qualified as anyone else
Being king didn’t work out well last time he tried it.
Luckily, the event is called The Open Championship, so we’ve dodged that bullet.
Queen Liz is titular head of state of rather a lot of other countries already, eg. Canada, New Zealand Australia etc.
[/QUOTE]
And while the queen usually does do what the PM tells her to, I’m pretty sure this is one situation where she would not.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I’m no expert on the UK constitution, but would this fall within the British Prime Minister’s remit at all?
*“The Prime Minister respectfully recommends that Her Majesty decline the Scottish crown.”
"Yeah? Well the Queen of **Scotland *recommends that the British government mind its own business."
Wouldn’t it be like the PM teliing her to give up the New Zealand throne?
No, but I think Elendil’s Heir’s subtext was that if the Queen didn’t follow through on the British PM’s recommendation, Parliament would remove her from the British throne (or possibly abolish the monarchy entirely). The Queen would therefore have to choose between Scotland and the UK. (Naturally, she would remain Queen of all the other Commonwealth realms, unless their governments decided to pull a similar stunt.)
Would he need to deal with the Queen directly at all? Scotland can only become independent through UK legislation, and the PM can wield considerable control over the legislative process, so couldn’t he just refuse to allow legislation that established an independent Scotland with Elizabeth II as monarch? Of course, the new Scotland could, once independent, just change the law and invite her on board…