I cannot believe how blinkered and Anglo-centric you are. Scotland is not a colony of Rump UK and never has been. Your conclusions are ruled by your false assumption that this is decolonisation like Australia, India or Ireland.
You assert: “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.”
Would you care to back that up with some facts.
I am pretty certain that the Queen would be unhappy to be told that her sovereignty over her historical territory of Scotland depended on the advice of only one part of her realm. It would be a brave Prime Minister who tried to tell her that she was no longer Queen in Scotland because a Westminster government had so decided- no your majesty, Balmoral is no loner in your realm and the Castle of May is not either.
No. The first part of your statement is correct but the second is not.
Take for example Papua New Guinea. The constitution of PNG states explicitly that the monarch of the UK will be monarch of PNG. This precludes PNG from adopting its own succession law.
PNG can of course amend its constitution and enact its own succession law, thus creating a distinct PNG monarchy. What they can’t do is compel the present Queen to take on the gig. The Queen doesn’t accept the throne of any country unless the government of the UK (and, I think, of each other Commonwealth realm) is happy for her do to so. And, given that the policy of the UK government for centuries past has been to eliminate this kind of thing, and that they have severely limited their own freedom to regulate succession to the throne precisely to prevent it arising, it’s unlikely that they would advise her to play along.
It’s a fairly improbably speculation. The only time this has happened in the British monarchy was when Victoria could not succeed to the throne of Hanover, which passed instead to her uncle, Ernest Augustus I. This was greeted with some relief at the time; the connection with Hanover had been seen as anomalous and embarrassing. (Hanoverian and British forces had at times been on opposite sides in the Napoleonic wars.) Beyond that one instance, British princes have not been keen to take up foreign thrones, or been encouraged to do so by British governments.
Various problems of principle arise; in his UK role, Prince Harry has sworn allegiance to the UK queen (and future occasions will arise when he has to do so again). What are the implications of Australia having a head of state who swears allegiance to a foreign head of state? Why would the Australians think that was a good ide?
In other dynasties, where this happens it is not a way of cementing unity, but of lessening it. For example, when Norway became independent of Denmark the throne was offered to Prince Karl of Denmark, and he accepted it. But part of the deal was that he renounced all claims on the Danish throne for himself and his descendants so that, over time, the Danish and Norwegian monarchies would grow further apart, not closer together. And exactly the same thing happened when, e.g., a Danish prince accepted the Greek throne, or a French prince accepted the Spanish throne.
In other words, this phenomenon isn’t a way of cementing a relationship with another country; it’s a way of a acquiring a monarch without getting closer to another country. But - no offence to monarchs - monarchy has nothing to offer Australia beyond a connection with the British commonwealth, so it make no sense for Australia to offer a throne to a junior British royal when they can have the big cheese herself. Nor is there any reason why the British government would be overly thrilled about the idea.
I don’t think the Queen’s happiness enters into this at all. And I’m not assuming that this is decolonisation; simply that a sovereign Scotland will be a new political entity (i.e one which currently does not exist).
Queen Elizabeth is monarch of the UK. That does not give her any claim, right or expectation to be monarch in any sovereign state which in the future may arise in territory which was once part of the UK. She is not monarch in the Republic of Ireland, all of whose territory was once in the UK. She may or may not be monarch in a sovereign Scotland.
A sovereign Scottish state will be a newly created political entity. It is not a given that the new Scottish state will be a monarchy at all. it might be a republic. It might even be a monarchy, but with a monarch who is not QEII. We won’t know unless and until a sovereign Scotland is actually constituted.
The present Queen’s becoming monarch in sovereign Scotland depends on three conditions. First, a sovereign Scotland having a monarch, which is not a given. Second, Scottish law identifying her as the person entitled to be monarch. (As the Scottish law in question has yet to be written, this is not a given either, but if the first condition is satisfied, then it is probably that this one will be too.) Thirdly, her being willing to take on the gig - which she will only do if her ministers in her other realms are agreeable. Will she be unhappy if they are not? Very possibly, but she takes her constitutional duties very seriously, and her constitutional duties are to accept the advice of her ministers, not to be happy about it.
She won’t be Queen of Scotland unless and until she is offered the gig, and accepts it. But she’s already Queen of the UK, and bound to accept the advice of her UK Ministers. Ergo, she will not accept the throne of Scotland against the advice of her UK ministers.
She’s not, actually. She’s in the line of succession to the British throne. The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707, but if we take Scottish succession law as it stood in 1707 and apply it to establish who would would notionally be king of Scotland if the Kingdom of Scotland had survived until today, the answer is not Elizabeth II. It’s Franz, Duke of Bavaria.
We shall see. I suspect that no Prime Minister would advise against a strongly held Monarchial opinion about her territories.
The situation would be fluid and pragmatic like all such previous ones- making it up as they go along. What will NOT be the case is Westminster deciding anything for Holyrood.
The Westminster Government only advises on UK affairs, if Scotland is a member of the Commonwealth and wants QEII to continue as its monarch, I can see nothing that the UK can do, given that the Commonwealth is no longer subservient in any way to Westminster.
Consider this question- Scotland votes YES. Independence is set for 2016. Scotland becomes independent in 2016. At the point of independence, QEII is Monarch. Is she still Monarch the day after? Who has a right to decide that?
On that point I think Pjen is right, not least because the Queen becoming monarch of Scotland would be a Scottish matter, and it would be seen as rUK interfering in iScot’s internal affairs if they objected to it.
I mean, if the Queen suddenly said she’s been offered the throne of Libya as well as her existing realms, they might have a cause for concern, but as Scotland’s a recently-UK country…
It is arguable that if the United Kingdom (created from Scotland and England) ceases to exist, then both equally have the rights of continuity or nether do. This is not decolonisation- it is separation of the basic constituents of a unitary state.
The Statute of Westminster only applies to Dominions; Scotland is not and has never been a dominion, it is an equal partner in a United Kingdom. It overturns the previous Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 which never applied to Scotland.
I am going to end this conversation now and make three final points which are indisputable
1/ Scotland and England are and always have been equal partners in the United Kingdom. They have conjoined their monarchy over the past few centuries.
2/ The United Kingdom has no single constitution, but a series of agreements which are open to pragmatic interpretation as evidenced in the way that many things in a written constitution would not be. There is no definite decision procedure for separation. Decisions about this cannot necessarily be taken by any successor parliaments or governments acting alone.
3/ The situation after an agreed separation between Rump UK and Scotland will be decided pragmatically and not legalistically, until the last moment when everyone will pretend that that was what the constitution intended.
We shan’t see, actually. I think the point is moot. Scottish independence, should it happen, will involve negotiation between the Scottish and UK governments about a host of issues, one of which is very likely to be the future relationship of the UK monarch to the new Scottish state. Undoubtedly there is room for agreement between the Scottish and UK governments for the new Scottish state to be a Commonwealth realm. (In 1922 the agreement was for the Irish Free State to have “dominion status”, which was the then equivalent.) And if that’s agreed between the two governments, then the UK government is plainly not going to advise the Queen against it.
Every proposal to constitute a new Commonwealth realm is in fact the subject of advice from the UK government to the Queen. It’s regarded, I think, as an aspect of the foreign relations of the UK. (If you think about it, relations with the UK are the only reasons why another country would choose to make the UK monarch their own monarch also.)
A proposal that the Queen should accept the throne of a country other than the UK is a proper subject of advice from UK ministers, and the Queen will not accept the throne of another country against the advice of her UK ministers.
At the point of independence, she’s the monarch of the UK. Immediately after Scottish independence, she’s still the monarch of the UK. Nothing about her monarchical status has changed.
But the UK no longer includes Scotland. Instead, let’s say, Scotland is included in the Scottish Free State. Is she monarch of the Scottish Free State? Well, that depends on how the Scottish Free State is constituted. Is it a monarchy? And, if so, what does Scottish law say about who the monarch is?
Who has the right to decide this? Well, if we understand monarchy as a relationship between the monarch and the state, then monarchy requires the assent of both the state (expressed, in a democracy, through laws enacted by the people or their representatives) and the monarch.
In other words, for QEII to be monarch of sovereign Scotland, two conditions must be satisfied. First, Scottish law must establish a monarchy and identify her as the monarch. Second, she must accept the role. The UK government is in a position, if it wishes to, to influence what Scottish law might say (by the position it takes in independence negotiations) and to control what QEII might say (by yanking, if it chooses to, the constitutional chains which bind her).
This is your error. Scotland and England are not “equal partners in the United Kingdom”. Scotland and England, as political entities, ceased to exist in 1707. The successor state was not a “partnership” or a federation, but a unitary state which entirely replaced both predecessor states.
Saying that Scotland and England are equal partners in the UK is a bit like saying that Burgundy and Navarre are equal partners in France. They’re not. They’re historical states which used to exist but which no longer do, and whose territory is now part of the state of France.
But if England disagreed and Scotland wanted to continue, then QEII would have to consider her position vis a vis her monarchial relationship to and history of Scotland. The UK Government as a rump would not necessarily have any input into this.
So Blinkered and Anglo-centric. It is not Scotland Leaving, but two nations and monarchies that were united now separating.
It will not be dealt with as a new realm, but will be fudged as usual. There are no circumstances under which QEII would accept advice from UK ministers over part of her realm no longer under the governance of the Westminster Parliament.
1st June 2016
Mr Cameron: We have a problem with the Monarchy in Scotland and I do not feel your Government can support the Monarchy being split between your realm without legislation allowing this from Westminster.
QEII: Let me tell you Mr Cameron, Scotland is now an Independent Nation separate from the rest of my previously United Kingdom. My Scottish subjects have made it clear that they still see me as their monarch and I have considered that with advice from my Scottish ministers. As we are now past independence, you in no way speak for the people of Scotland and so have no standing in this except as it affects the rest of the UK. Scotland are a continuing member of the Commonwealth as is the rest of the UK, and I have decided that I shall act as Monarch of Scotland on the sole advice of my Scottish ministers as is my prerogative as Queen of Scotland and in the same manner I would as if I were acting as Queen of Australia or Canada- solely on my ministers’ advice- ministers from that realm only.
Scotland as a geographical and cultural entity will of course continue to exist.
But Scotland a a sovereign state? That will be a brand new state. At present there is no sovereignty called “Scotland”. When one comes into existence, it will be a new state.
Excellent question. It is a very Anglocentric view, if you like, but would you not expect the government of rump-UK to take an Anglocentric view?
In theory it could apply to the rump UK. When a sovereign state splits, and two (or more) sovereignties remain when the dust settles, the question of which is a new creation and which (if either) is the continuation of the preceding sovereign entity can sometimes be difficult to answer. It usually gets answered pragmatically. In this case, there won’t be much doubt; rump UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) will regard itself as the continuation of the UK created in 1800, and will be so accepted by the international community (including, I suggest, sovereign Scotland). That, after all, is what happened in 1922. It’s possible that QEII would refuse to accept view of the matter but I suggest that it’s not very likely that she would, not least because (a) her Ministers will advise her not to, and (b) the implication would not necessarily be that she is automatically Queen of Scotland and Queen of rump-UK; it would be that she is not necessarily Queen of either.
Rump UK may regard itself as such, but what meaning will that have in the relationship between QEII and her realm of Scotland? It s a moot point and one that can only be settled by fudge. Nothing like this has happened before in British Politics- Ireland left slowly and acrimoniously and wanted to ditch the Monarchy.
QEII’s UK ministers only advise her on UK matters, not on Independent state matters that would arise with the departure of Scotland without formal agreement between Rump UK and Independent close Scotland.
It will be agreed by fudge and probably royal proclamation announced in both Parliaments.