Pjen, it seems to me that one of the arguments you’re making in the thread seems to pretty much be “Everything will change, but also stay the same.”; that if Scotland gets independence, the Queen will still be the Queen, the pound will still be the currency, Scotland will join the EU, the border between England and Scotland will still be open, Scots will still be allowed to live in England, maybe be citizens there, or whatever. The only big differences will be that Scots won’t be ashamed of wearing kilts and set up some great social welfare state because there won’t be Tories around to stop them.
And that might all be true, and all power if it is. But, it also might not. The English could say, “You don’t want to be part of the United Kingdom, well, fuck off, but we’re blackballing you from the EU, the Queen’s put Balmoral up with the estate agent, and you can make your own stupid money. You want independence, you got it baby!” I’m not saying that will happen, mind, just that it could, and England would be in their rights to do so.
But if the English wanted the Scots out of the EU, out of the sterling area, out of the monarchy, etc, they can do all that right now, given their dominance of the UK parliament. They obviously don’t want that, and there’s no reason to think that they would want it if Scotland were independent.
The UK has a long history of wishing to maintain good and close relationships with places that it formerly ruled, whether as a part of the UK (the Republic of Ireland) or as a colony or other external possession (Australia, Canada, India, etc).
There may be weighty arguments against Scottish independence, but the possibility that the English will have a hissy fit and throw their toys out of the pram is not one of the weightier ones.
The Queen is Queen of Scotland as of right. Nothing Westminster can do will change that.
There is nothing England can do about Scotland using the pound as its currency. Unless they want Scotland to repudiate the National Debt which is part of the package- we are currently joint owners of Sterling- if it does not continue then there are consequences for Rump UK. And there is also the Euro which is no longer toxic! If rump UK is really difficult over this, Faslane could be brought into the question!- the UK will need to negotiate a lease on Faslane as it will take at least a decade to relocate.
Even if Scotland is not allowed immediate membership of the EU it is eligible for the same associate status of Norway and Switzerland- allowing access to the Market and full mobility within the EU.
The border between England and Scotland is no more likely to be closed than that between Ireland and the UK which remained open through decades of Irish/UK governments barely on speaking terms!
Scots are and will still be British Citizens by right (New born Scots might not if not agreed). They will still have the right to have British Passports if they wish (as can all Irish born before final statehood for Ireland in 1948.
The big difference is that Scotland will control its social and monetary policy.
Westminster has no real sway over any of the above- it can bluster, but there is a reality in politics that will have to be addressed- governments are limited in what they can do to other states.
I am not saying there will be no problems, but most of the problems being discussed are scare stories put out by the No campaign rather than real world problems.
Agreed. And in the past they were just the British Lions until Ireland asked for the change!
British does not belong to England at all, but is a flexible concept. Similalrly in many ways Scotland and Rump UK would still be a United Kingdom, but two separate States and Nations- quite a common position in previous centuries when monarchs were shared.
Historically there is still a Scottish Monarchy that is united with the English Monarchy. This argument is so typical of Anglocentric thinking. It assumes that the monarchy in some ways automatically devolves back to England, rather than being a joint enterprise from the union of the crowns. If Scotland did get Independence, then no legislation in Westminster could force Scotland to Accept or reject QEII as monarch. They might need to alter UK law to reflect the new reality, but such legislation would not be necessary post independence if Rump UK was difficult about it. Obviously the only way forward is for both independent parliaments to have concurrent legislation reflecting the division of the monarchy. I cannot imagine QEII making any move that was not approved by her Parliament in Scotland.
Balfour Declaration initially followed by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. Previously there was one monarch in one person for the entire British Empire. After various declarations and acts we now have one person being separate Monarch for each realm. This required legislation in Parliaments home and abroad at different times for different dominions.
Between 1714 and 1837 there were two separate political entities- The UK and Hanover with separate laws and the same monarch. When Victoria ascended she could not be monarch as the Hanoverian succession was in the male line only, so at that point Hanover and the UK were two separate states with two separate monarchs. Laws passed in one state were not effective in the other at any time- it was merely a shared Figurehead of Sovereignty. Other than that you are nit splitting.
So Anglo-centric- assuming the Queen belongs to England. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom and should Scotland become a separate state there is no reality in her being more Queen of Rump UK than Queen of Scotland.
Your Anglo-centricity is amplified by assuming that Westminster controls the law of succession for other Commonwealth Realms- it does not. The Queen is Queen of each dominion separately and should Australia decide on her death that they would like to appoint Harry as King, that would be a decision of the Australian Parliament advising their Monarch (Queen Elizabeth II of Australia) about their intentions- which she would have to accept. Now it would be rude, but it would be legal. Similarlly any dominion could choose to reudiate the Act of Succession and be fair to Roman Catholics.
Admittedly there is an informal agreement to attempt to keep the monarchy unitary, but that in no way precludes other Parliaments from making independent decisions about the matter.
We are currently in that position about just such a matter over primogeniture- legislation by Westminster does not alter the succession in all the other realms and they are all currently trying to enact parallel legislation of their own volition- not at Westminster’s command.
That is not what a recent poll I read suggested. I am looking for the reference now, but they found a bias in don’t knows who expressed Nationalists sentiments over unionists in that the luke warm Nationalists were more likely to turn out on the day as a positive vote than the luke warm Unionists.
But we shall see over the next few months. It all depends on whether the Better Together campaign starts having an impact- so far its interventions have been dire.
I read an analysis a few days ago. Unfortunately I read the Scotsman, Herald, Times, telegraph, Guardian, Independent and mail so cannot remmber which analysis it was. I will look. the nub of the matter is as above re luke warm support being stronger on the Yes side. This may be balanced by people lying to pollsters admittedly.
No. exactly the opposite. Because of the Balfour Declaration and later legislation, Canada and the UK are separate realms with separate monarchs, though eacjh monarch is in one person- QEII and her successors. This situation occurred because the realms were colonies of the UK.
In your anglo-centric opinion you see Scotland-Rump UK as analogous to Canada-UK; it is not. Whereas in the Canada case previously the monarch had been the Monarch of the British Empire being by right of the power of Westminster, monarch of Canada, it was within Westminster’s right to ‘allow’ Canada to become an independent nation and then to negotiate the position of the head of state. The situation with Scotland is different. Already it is a joint crown inherited from a succession running through Scottish and English history. At the dissolution of the union between Scotland and England, the crown will automatically be that of either both or neither- England does not have the whip hand as it is not the sole successor state. Nothing Westmnster can do can stop the Scottish Parliament from Advising QEII to act in a particular manner. Given the effort to maintain the monarchy over those relams that want it, I can see no problem with simply returning to a separate Scottish monarchy running parallel to the one shred by the rst of the Commonwealth monarchies.
The monarchy no more belongs to England than it belongs to Scotland.
No. That was the state of affairs from 1603 until 1707, but since then there has only been a UK monarchy.
The significance of this was illustrated in 1701, when the English parliament passed the Act of Settlement providing for the devolution of the crown of England upon the death of Queen Anne (to exclude Catholics from succession). The Act provided that if Anne had no children of her own she would be succeeded by her sister Sophia, and then by Sophia’s heirs, so long as they were Protestant. The Act did not, of course, purport to regulate succession to the throne of Scotland; this was a matter for the Scottish parliament. The Scottish Parliament declined to pass an Act in similar terms; instead it passed the Act of Security saying that, if Queen Anne died without issue, the Scottish Parliament would meet to choose a successor from among the Protestant descendants of the Kings of Scotland. It further provided that Parliament was not to choose the person who succeeded Anne in England unless certain economic and political conditions were met.
Royal Assent was withheld from the Scottish measure, but it nevertheless precipitated a constitutional crisis. England and Scotland now had different succession laws, and foreseeably on the death of Anne different people would ascend to the throne of each country. This makes the point that the English and Scottish thrones were separate thrones, occupied as a matter of historical accident by the same person, not a united throne which must of necessity be occupied by the same person.
The crisis was resolved by a Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, ratified by Acts of Union passed by both Parliaments. The treaty provided that “the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN”. And it went on to provide that succession to the monarchy of that kingdom would be to Sophia, and her heirs, being Protestants.
In other words, there had not up to that point been “one kingdom with two political entities”. A kingdom is a political entity. There had been two kingdoms, each with their own succession rules which, by an accident of genealogy, had identified the same people as heirs. But there was no guarantee that the succession rules of the two kingdoms would continue to identify the same heirs; in fact, as the English had changed their rules and the Scots had not, foreseeably they would in the future identify different heirs. One possible solution to this was to get the two kingdoms to adopt identical succession rules, but this could not be achieved. The other solution was to end the separate existence of the two kingdoms and to bring a single united kingdom, with a single succession rule, into existence, and this is what the Union achieved.
The United Kingdom established in 1707 can be seen as the successor to both the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland. But it’s a single kingdom with a single monarchy. It’s not true that there is “still a Scottish monarchy that is united with the English monarchy”. There’s just a UK monarchy.
Indeed. That’s pretty much the definition of independence. Scotland will decide who the head of state of Scotland is.
The thing is, if they decide they want the present Queen as their head of state, the well-established and well-settled model for this is the Commonwealth realm, which entirely excludes the possibility of a separate monarchy with its own succession rules. The deal for Commonwealth realms is that they accept the UK succession rules, plus a guarantee from the UK that those succession rules will not be altered without their assent.
It is of course possible that a Scottish state might create an independent Scottish monarchy with its own succession rules, not tied to the UK monarchy or the UK succession rules, and then offer the throne to the present Queen. But of course the present Queen would only accept the throne if advised to do so by her (UK ) ministers. And that raises two issues. First, is it likely that the UK ministers would advise her to do so, given the problems that separate thrones have given rise to in the past? Having hammered out the “commonwealth realm” model to provide national independence under a united monarchy, why would they see it as appropriate to depart from it now? And, secondly, is it consistent with the independence of Scotland and of the Scottish monarchy to have a monarch whose very acceptance of the office is conditional on the advice of a foreign government? Why would an independent Scotland wanting its own monarchy offer the throne to a woman situated as the present Queen is?
I think these points are academic. The suggestion that an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state is predicated on the assumption that this will be achieved by Scotland becoming a commonwealth realm. Nobody imagines otherwise.
With respect, it’s far from obvious that that’s “the only way forward”. The established commonwealth realm model does not involve “concurrent legislation” in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth realms “reflecting the division of the monarchy”. And that model is not only a possible way forward, but the most likely one.
How is that “nit splitting”, for the love of God? Hanover and the UK were at all times two separate states. from 1714 until 1837 the same person was head of state in both places, but in no sense did this create a “united kingdom with two political entities”. As you point out, laws passed in one state were never effective in the other. They were at all time separate states. They were in no sense a united kingdom, ever.
Kingdom as a word has changed meaning over the centuries as have the meanings of nation and State.
When monarchs were absolute or near to it, a Kingdom could easily mean one separate political entity.
The United Kingdom currently is one ‘International’ political entity, but several oddly defined internal political entities. Within the Atlantic Isles we have at least four nations, at least five political entities, one kingdom and one republic, plus several anomalies such as Man, Jersey, Guernsey etc.
It all depends what you mean by ‘Kingdom’. In these matters protocol would suggest that the structure would be determined by the desires of QEII and if she wished to remain a single monarch of two separate states rather than two separate monarches, then I suspect that this will happen and tradition will out.
But as much as she is going to be Monarch of Scotland, she will equally be Monarch of Rump UK- it will not be a gift of Westminster as it was with previous decolonisation.
So at its dissolution it will be up to the two successor States in conversation with their currently shared monarch to decide the future of the monarchy for the subsequent realms. Not a decision for Westminster?
Well, that’s a matter for Parliament of rump-UK, obviously. But odds are they will take the same view as they did in 1922; that they are the united kingdom as they were before, having merely ceded some territory. And the international community is likely to take the same view.
Of course. But any dominion that did either of the things you suggest would cease to be a Commonwealth realm. It would be a distinct monarchy within the Commonwealth, like Tonga or Swaziland.
As to Westminster controlling the law of succession of other commonwealth realms, I think your imputation of Anglo-centricity to me is unwarranted. Any commonwealth country is free to constitute itself as a separate monarchy, or as a republic, at any time. But as long as they choose to be commonwealth realms they themselves abandon the possibility of independently regulating the succession to the throne. They sign up to the existing UK law on the subject, with a guarantee that that law will not be changed without their assent. You may think that’s an Anglo-centric attitude to take, but it’s not my Anglo-centric attitude; it’s theirs. I myself come from a long line of republican soldiers, so you can guess my stance on this. It’s not Anglo-centric.
It’s not informal. It’s explicitly stated in one of the constitutional fundamental statutes of the Parliament of the UK.
No. It’s not a case of each commonwealth realm passing a statute regulating succession to its own monarchy
Under the Statute of Westminster 1931 UK legislation dealing with the succession to the throne does not affect the dominions unless they assent to it, so the UK passes an Act regulating succession to the throne, and the various commonwealth realms assent to it.
This may, or may not, involve legislation by the parliaments of those realms - that depends on their domestic constitutional arrangements. So, for example, Canada has passed an Act, the business end of which says “the alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne set out in the bill laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and entitled A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes is assented to”. But several other commonwealth realms have passed no legislation at all, the governments of those countries having taken the view that it is with the competence of the government of the day, rather than of the parliament, to assent to the relevant UK legislation. And in many cases they take the view that separate legislation is not needed because their constitutional provisions explicitly say that their monarchs will be “Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
My understanding is that the agreement on the succession is one between equal partners in the deal and that each and any realm could disagree independently, yet still reatin its monarch in the person of the current Queen.
It is certainly desirable that the monarchy remains unitary, but the past history of royal families has been a succession of successions with junior branches hiving off. Not that this would or should happen, but it conceivably could.
What would Westminster and QEII do if the Australian Parliament elected Harry Successor to QEII?
I think your reasoning is doubtful and Anglo-centric.
Should Independence occur, QEII will either still be Queen of Scotland and rump UK or Not. If Not then legislation will be necessary in both Parliaments; if so, then no legislation would be needed- status quo would maintain. QEII would be de facto Queen of Rump UK and Scotland through history and succession in the latter case, or by legislation in the former.
As monarch of Scotland QEII would only accept advice on matters Scottish from the Scottish Parliament; if Scotland decided to alter the succession it could do so with impunity as the Queen would have to act on the advice of her ministers.
UK ministers would have no right to advise on matters Scottish any more than they currently have on matters Australian.
Well, you can argue that the United Kingdom of Great Britain, established in 1707 in succession to the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland no longer exists, having itself been succeeded in 1801 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And if the United Kingdom of 1707 no longer exists, then of course it can’t be dissolved.
The government of rump-UK will undoubtedly take the same view that it took in 1922; the UK is not coming to an end and being succeeded by two new entities; it is merely ceding some territory on which one new entity will be established. There will be one continuing entity, the UK, and one new entity, a sovereign Scottish state, the formal title of which we don’t yet know. And the rest of the international community is highly likely to take the same view.
The upshot of this, as far as the monarchy goes, willl be that the present monarch will continue, without interruption or need for confirmation or reaffirmation, to be monarch of the (now reduced) UK, but she will become monarch in sovereign Scotland only if, and in consequence of, some explicit Scottish constitutional provision to that effect. While in theory Scotland could do this unilaterally, of course the Queen won’t play ball unless the government and parliament of rump-UK are happy.
So, in a nutshell, the Queen’s role in rump UK need not change, and probably won’t, and is no business of the Scottish government; but the Queen’s role in Scotland, if any, is a matter for the consideration of the Scottish government and the assent of the UK government.
It would not be. She would be Queen of Scotland (we might need to call her Elizabeth the First!) and so would not accept advice from rump UK ministers.
[quote=“UDS, post:392, topic:685820”]
Why would an independent Scotland wanting its own monarchy offer the throne to a woman situated as the present Queen is?
Because she is in the line of Scottish Succession.