Scottish Independence and the Windsors

[KeepMovingForward]

I recently read an article about Scottish Indpendence, and am wondering about a few things. If Scotland has a referendum and chooses to become an independent sovereign nation then what will become of the Windsors in Scotland? Will Scotland drop the Windsors and go with the Stuarts? Will they abolish the monarchy altogether? Is this plan by the SNP set in stone?

About the Scottish military forces. It is my understanding that members of the British military take on oath to the Queen. How will Scottish independence affect that oath for members of Scottish regiments, battalions, etc if Scotland becomes independent?

Note to Mod: I'm not sure if this is the correct forum, so please move if neccessary, thanks.

[KittyAtlanta]

Can't answer all your questions, but if Scotland becomes independent, then there would be no Scots regiments in the British forces. They would be Scottish forces and, presumably, would not take an oath to HM, but would swear allegience to Scotland and to uphold the (chosen) constitution of Scotland.

If they become independent, they may have to leave the commonwealth.

Not sure about any of that, but it is fodder for discussion.

[Lumutqueen]

I doubt very much that if it chooses to 'get rid of' the Windsors, they will not be replaced by other monarchs. Scotland, I believe, will become a republic. It's amazing how people seem to link the idea Scottish independence with the monarchy, and not with government.

Scotland, can still be part of the Commonwealth should it abolish the monarchy. The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Realms are two separate organisations.

[fearghas]

Persoanlly I think that everyone in the United Kingdom should have a say in whether Scotland becomes independant because it will affect everone in the country. Essentially the UK would not exist anymore and the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England will affected by that. I often wonder if pro independence people consider how Scotland would survive without the inflow of money from the other parts of the UK, especially the tax payers of England.
As to whether Scotland would remain a monarchy I doubt it as many of the nationalists seem to be ardent republicans.

[Iluvbertie]

If Scotland, or any other realm, becomes a republic they apply to retain membership of the Commonwealth. So far, as far as I am aware, no such application has been refused. Sure some countries have been expelled/suspended from the Commonwealth e.g. South Africa, Pakistan, Fiji, Nigeria at different times and later re-instated but applications to retain membership on becoming a republic is a different matter.

As for Scotland remaining a monarchy - everything I have seen suggests that Elizabeth would remain as Queen of Scotland like she is now Queen of Australia.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by fearghas

I often wonder if pro independence people consider how Scotland would survive without the inflow of money from the other parts of the UK, especially the tax payers of England.

There would still be an inflow of money from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the republic. It would be disastrous for both sides to cut off all economic links. This more has to do with government and the monarchy, not trade routes.

I certainly don't think England, Wales and Northern Ireland should have anything to do with Scotlands independence because we don't live in Scotland. You might want to have a read of this link which outlines the plans for independence.

[KeepMovingForward]

Originally Posted by fearghas

Persoanlly I think that everyone in the United Kingdom should have a say in whether Scotland becomes independant because it will affect everone in the country. Essentially the UK would not exist anymore and the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England will affected by that.

According to international law the Scottish people have the right to self-determination:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Charter of the United Nations

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

There would still be an inflow of money from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the republic. It would be disastrous for both sides to cut off all economic links. This more has to do with government and the monarchy, not trade routes.
.

No i was talking about tax money not trade.

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by KeepMovingForward

According to international law the Scottish people have the right to self-determination:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Charter of the United Nations

Self determination and independence are two different things.

[NGalitzine]

All the economic studies I have seen indicate it would be very rough going for Scotland should they become independent. A lot of tax revenue flows north from Westminster to support Scotland since Scotland does not generate enough revenue to pay its own way. There is already talk of businesses relocating south of the border should Scotland separate, but that may be premature since most polls suggest independence won't happen.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by fearghas

No i was talking about tax money not trade.

Actually if you look at some recent articles on the matter you see that Scotland can survive very well without the income of tax from England. If Scotland are truly considering independence from the UK then they will have examined all ways the detachment could effect scottish life, including the income of tax. However I doubt England has examined how Scotland effects its economy and the money it bring such as the North Sea Gas and Oil revenues. Apparently PM David Cameron is due to travel to Scotland this thursday, to discuss the apparent independence.

[James VI]

The SNP is committed to ending the Act of Union (1707) which united the parliaments of England and Scotland. The Union of the Crowns (1603) which effectively created what is now the British monarchy, is of course a seperate treaty, and would be unaffected by the end of the Act of Union. If Scotland voted to become independent, Elizabeth would remain head of state, as Queen of the Scots, which is her legal and moral right. However, as a Scotsman i can tell you that the SNP is a fundamentally socialist and republican organisation, hatred towards the Queen is deep rooted and springs from a complete ignorance of Scottish history. They would undoubtedly seek to make an independent Scotland a republic, by ending the Union of the Crowns, destroying the Scottish Crown, one of the oldest in Europe. So far, this ambition has yet to surface in the on going debate about independence, but make no mistake, there are many of us in Scotland who know what the SNP is all about and when the vote on independence happens (2014) i am fully confident that my fellow countrymen and women will vote NO!!!

[Kataryn]

It is sad that there is no Stuart descendant with a better claim to Mary Queen of Scots and James VI. Crown (of which there are thousends: all Habsburgs, all Wittelsbach, lots and lots of other Royals) who are of Scottish (that is: at the moment of British nationality). So besides the Windsors there is no Royal claimant who has any ancient but still existing relationship to
Scotland.

Okay, there were the illegitimate sons of Charles II. Has there be any illegitimate buit legalized birth in Scotland's Royal House of the Stuarts which led to a successful claim to the throne?

Otherwise they could offer the Crown of Scotland to Harry.... That has happened in 1905 when Norway became independant of Sweden and they offered the Crown first to the second son of their former ruler and only when he declinded gave it to a Danish prince with Norwegian Royal ancestry and close links to the Bernadotte dynasty of Sweden).

[Al_bina]

Why would Scottish people offer a crown to a person from the House of Windsor? Perhaps they would like a usual democratic state.

[KeepMovingForward]

Originally Posted by fearghas

Self determination and independence are two different things.

How so in international law? If a people, in this case the Scots, vote that they would like to become an independent nation then how is that not "self-determination"?

[James VI]

Indeed so, the people of the Falkland Islands are exercising their right of self determination, in wishing to remain a British dependant territory, rather than be handed over to the Argentine republic. In reference to Scotland, when i vote in the referendum ( when the SNP finally has the guts to call one) i will not necessarily be voting on wether Scotland should become an independent state ( and eventual republic ) but on the idea of the Scottish people determining their own constitutional future, and here, i am more than optimistic that we will vote to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

[James VI]

In reply to Kataryn, there would be no need to offer the Scottish crown to anyone else. Elizabeth is the rightfull Queen of Scotland, as she is the rightfull Queen of England, her position is set in stone both legally and morally. Her heirs and successors also have an unquestionable right to both crowns. However, if Scotland did become independent, under SNP rule, they would eventually seek to break the Union of the Crowns. Then, the Scottish Crown would not be offered to a third party, but ABOLISHED COMPLETELY!! in favour of a republic, something which i will fight tooth and nail to oppose.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by James VI

In reply to Kataryn, there would be no need to offer the Scottish crown to anyone else. Elizabeth is the rightfull Queen of Scotland, as she is the rightfull Queen of England, her position is set in stone both legally and morally. Her heirs and successors also have an unquestionable right to both crowns.

Actually no. Elizabeth is queen of Scotland because the parliament of the UK decided that the Crowns of the Uk would be inherited by the heirs of the Electress Sophie (youngest child of Elizabeth Stuart) after the death of Queen Anne Stuart. So Sophie's eldest son and heir George became George I. of the UK. But according to Scottish traditions, where catholic monarchs were possible, the legitime line after the House of Stuart became extinct in 1807 is another one. Most senior Stuart descendant of all lines, Catholic and Protestant, is currently Duke Francis of Bavaria, senior descendant of Henrietta Ann Stuart, daughter of Charles I. and sister to both Charles II. and James II., as her line is next according to the way the Scots Crown was passed down the line.

[James VI]

The Act of Settlement does indeed place the Scottish and English crowns in the hands of Sophia and her descendants, and it is perfectly possible that if this act were to be revoked, the various Stuarts from the collateral branch you mentioned could make a claim on one or indeed both Crowns. However, i doubt the Scottish or English peoples would be willing to trade Queen Elizabeth for Duke Francis, and any legal claim would be unlikely to succeed. My wider point, as a Scotsman and a monarchist, is of far greater importance. If the SNP succeed in their political ambitions, ultimately, there will be no Scottish Crown, and any rival claims to it will become even more theoretical than they are at present.

[EIIR]

I agree, James VI. The SNP have no love for the monarchy, quite the opposite in fact. The only reason Salmond pledges to keep the Queen on as head of state of an independent Scotland is so that he can say to the more conservative elements that there will be a reassuringly familiar feel to things if they vote yes, they're not moving entirely into the unknown.

I have no doubt, however, that the SNP would be hoping for an end to the monarchy after the death of the Queen in an independent Scotland.