Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy

[Osipi]

I don't see where a change of the government in Scotland really would have any bearing on the events held in Scotland such as the Order of the Thistle ceremonies, Braemar games attendance or anything else.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Basically it would depend on whether the monarchy is retained in an independent Scotland. If it is retained, then all those ceremonies and traditional events would likely go on as they do now.

If it's not retained, then the royals become normal citizens, much like the Habsburgs in Austria or the Hohenzollerns in Germany. Although, whether they'd have Scottish citizenship or a right to reside there are other questions (this is where the doubt over Scotland's future membership of the EU comes in). They'd probably still do the odd event for organisations that they have a personal connection with, but the official stuff would end. They would be able to keep the personal property they own there, but property that's owned by the Crown Estate would no longer be theirs to use.

Ultimately I think the royals know that if Scotland becomes independent it's only a matter of time before it becomes a republic, whatever Salmond says to win a few votes now.

 

[Nice Nofret]

You do have valid points. I have been told that the history between Scotland and England is heavily stained by blood and brutality. A fair number of Scotsmen/women want to be independent from England. So there will be a referendum to express their opinion on the matter. It is very difficult, but not impossible to run a government, outline/re-attune foreign policies, print new currency (if needed) and compete against the rest of the world. The former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia and republics of the former USSR did it.

True, but look where they are ... espacially Ex Yugoslavia ... they had a war between them where they distroied all that they had build up in the years before. And they perpetuated the bloodshed instead of finding lasting peace. It's no use looking to the past, to seek reasons for war again and again. Apart from a handfull who make fortunes in war, the people lose not only their homes but lot of lives ... and the economy is in tatters.

Apart from those thoughts; England and Scotland where united under James of Scotland in Personal Union and NOT in a war... or via occupation.

 

[Ish]

I don't see where a change of the government in Scotland really would have any bearing on the events held in Scotland such as the Order of the Thistle ceremonies, Braemar games attendance or anything else.

It would have great bearing on such events. If Scotland gains independence and retains a monarchy then the function of the monarch will fall to a GG, not the actual monarch. While it is entirely possible that the monarch may continue to take part in these occasions, it is the decision of the government. Royals only visit a realm on official business when they are invited to do so.

As for whether or not the Queen and her family can continue to vacation in Scotland... Well, I can't see why not. The Balmoral estate is private property, not crown property, so the Queen won't lose it. I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is when a royal wants to visit a realm unofficially, although it does happen, so I would assume that the Queen would still be able to go on vacation.

 

[Osipi]

Just clarifying, my opinion on the BRF attending the Braemar games would be solely in the capacity of attending because they enjoy it, not in an official capacity.

All of the family has, at one time or another, gone to other countries on their own (such as William and Harry going to a wedding in Tennessee recently and Harry to Las Vegas etc). I don't know exactly what is involved but I would imagine the RPOs and the royal's office do work with the officials of the host country/area to ensure security.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[.....] I hope that Scotland stays as it does have lots of history with Great Britain and yes there is lots of violence between the two........... [....]

Heu....

Lots of violence between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Not that I know of...

I think you are confused with Northern Ireland, where a part of the people wants to unite with the Irish Republic to fulfill their dream of one united Ireland. The other part wants to remain in the United Kingdom. Even there the "troubles" have faded away. Today's situation is not at all that violent and explosive as it was a decade ago.

 

[Roslyn]

Lots of violence between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Not that I know of...

There have been a few violent altercations between Scotland and England: Historic Scottish Battles - From Rampant Scotland

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Ow you were talking about the past. I stand corrected.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Property that the royals own privately, such as Balmoral would remain their private property.

Will they be able to still visit privately, such as the Braemar Games - sure - they are private events held near their country home.

Would they be treated the same way they are now - sure - respect would remain.

Remember that this vote is for Scotland to become independent of the rest of Britain - not a republic - so The Queen will remain Queen but of Scotland in the same way that she is Queen of Australia/Canada/New Zealand etc. In that case she will still be undertaking some engagements there - in fact Holyrood week could even be extended to allow her to take more engagements in Scotland in a concentrated period rather than the full week now and then other days during the course of the year.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Scotland can eventually become "ruled" by a Governor-General but there is a major difference: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. are geographically far away, while Scotland is "just hopping over Hadrian's Wall" on the same island. I can imagine that the Queen will periodically take residece at Holyrood Palace, probably longer than she uses to do. This means that, apart from the titulature, not that very much will change for The Queen of Scots, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, the Count and Countess of Strathearn, etc. They already appear as Scotland's royal family, including the use of Scot Arms, Scot standards and Scot titles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No - the difference would be in the workload for the monarch who would have to double their 'office' time from what it is now

1. The weekly meetings with the PM - with two PMs there would need to be two meetings - one in the UK and one in Scotland so The Queen would need to travel to Scotland every week. In the other realms the GG undertakes that job of meeting with the PM of their realm at least once a week.

2. Privy Council meetings to approve laws etc - again double from 1 - 2 a month and again that would have to be one in the UK and one in Scotland - of course that could be on the same day as a weekly PM audience - as happens now in the UK but still two council meetings rather than one a month. This is when the legislation is actually given the Royal Assent so again it is part of the constitution and has to happen.

3. Double the number of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to greet or farewell as these have to be done in person and by the Head of State for the most part. No way could she fob off the Ambassador from the US/to the US for instance with some no name courtier or even her son (Charles only carries out this duty now when he is serving as a Counsellor of State and even then it wouldn't be for the larger Commonwealth countries, NATO or EU countries or other major nations with which the UK has diplomatic relations - that has to be done by the Head of State so as not to insult the other nation). Hardly a week goes by when The Queen isn't welcoming or farewelling a new or retiring Ambassador or High Commissioner either from overseas or going in that direction - and yes she often does two or three on the same day - each is seen individually of course.

4. The daily 'boxes' would double as the red boxes from the UK would still come but so would 'boxes' from Scotland adding another twist - moving confidential government papers across national borders daily in either direction would be a security issue along with a cost issue. There would also have to be decision on how much 'in-the-loop' Charles was to be kept in relation to Scotland e.g. would he also see the 'boxes' from Scotland or not - he sees most of the boxes from the UK now.

5. Who would pay for the increase in The Queen's travel between Scotland and the UK as she would surely have to be spending about half her time in each place meaning closing Holyrood to the public for most of the year while she is in residence, or building a new palace for the Queen of the Scots that is suitable for her station - a GG can have a smaller residence, or as has been proven in NSW even continue to live in their own home (our state governor has done that for some time now allowing Government House to be used more only for major public events).

6. She would have to cut back the 'out of office' activities - the ones where she is seen by ordinary folks, have one day weekends, travel a lot more, etc as she would be spending more time on the paperwork and travelling than she does now.

7. Double the number of State Visits no doubt as both the UK and Scotland would want her to both undertake them on behalf of the individual country as well as receive incoming visits. Very difficult is say Scotland is at loggerheads with Norway of North Sea rights while the UK is fine with the situation and so invites the King for a State Visit which he accepts and the Queen, as functioning Head of State of the UK has to attend even though the Scottish parliament ask her not to do so e.g. the Queen of Spain situation over the Jubilee where the Spanish parliament told her not to attend so she didn't.


It isn't the distance from the UK that is the reason for GG but simply the workload involved as what she does now for ONE country she would have to do for TWO thus doubling the day in day out work.

 

[SElizabeth]

Ow you were talking about the past. I stand corrected.

I am sorry I didn't make myself clear on my comment about the violence between England and Scotland. Sometimes I don't deal with history if it isn't hundreds of years old or even thousands.......even a hundred years is new for me.........

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

The need for a Governor-General, for want of a better title, would depend on what duties the Scottish constitution assigns to the Queen. Unfortunately the draft constitution of Scotland is a bit vague on the subject. Section 9 is on the Head of State, who is to be the Queen. It is obviously written in such a way to make it easier to remove the monarch at a later stage. The draft vests sovereignty in the people of Scotland, not the Queen, sorry, the Head of State; and executive power is vested in the government. If the final version provides for a ceremonial Head of State there may not be any need for a full-time vice-regal presence in Edinburgh. After all, Scotland didn’t have one from 1603 to 1707.

During that century prior to the Act of Union, the day-to-day government of Scotland was left in the hands of the Privy Council in Edinburgh. When parliament met a Royal Commissioner represented the king. Could a Royal Commissioner make a comeback? I doubt it. The draft constitution places the stress on the title Head of State, not Queen or King, so I think it’s unlikely an ancient office of state would be revived. For much the same reason, I doubt that the title Governor-General would be given to the representative, if one were ever needed, of the Head of State. I just hope the referendum fails so that the Queen is not dragged into the vagaries of Section 9 of the draft constitution.

P.S. Iluvbertie, Dame Marie Bashir moved into Government House a few years ago. Mr Carr’s attempts to downgrade and undermine the office of Governor did not work after all. It was all very well for the Governor to remain in their own home, but it only really worked if the Governor's home was in Sydney. No doubt Dame Marie’s impeccable service for the last 13 years has done a great deal to revive the fortunes of the office of Governor of New South Wales.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When the Sovereignity is vested in the people and not in the Crown, then the title Queen of Scots is more fitting than Queen of Scotland. The other monarchy where the Sovereignity is vested in the people is Belgium. There Philippe is King of the Belgians and not King of Belgium.

We will see what happens. So far the polls seem to indicate that the majority will opt for continuation of the Union.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'd like to know what is the opinion of scottish members here.... (Well of course they support the monarchy ) but what is the feeling in scoltand right now?
Do you think the voters will choose for a independency?

I'm not Scottish although I know someone who is, and she has said that she doesn't want her country to become independent and separate from the United Kingdom. (She is not a member here, as far as I'm aware. ) One of my close friends is also Scottish, although I haven't asked her opinions on the whole situation yet. Of course, she is only one Scot that I know of who doesn't want the referendum to be successful, so I can't speak for the whole of Scotland.

This is something that I feel quite strongly about. I hope that Scotland doesn't become independent, since there will be so many important things that will need to be changed - the Union Jack and the usage of the words "The United Kingdom" for example. It won't be that united once Scotland leaves.

There was also talk on the News last week of Northern Ireland wanting to become independent, since they feel that since Scotland is having a referendum, then it's only fair that they should too.

I was reading the earlier pages of this thread and some posters were thinking that it could be possible that one of the Jacobite pretenders to the British throne (Duke Franz of Bavaria or Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein) could become King or President of Scotland. I'd quite like that if so, but I have a feeling that Salmond wants to be President instead.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and consists of the former kingdom of England (in which the principality of Wales was incorporated), the former kingdom of Scotland and the former kingdom of Ireland. With a break-away of Scotland, still (parts) of two former kingdoms, England and Ireland as well an incorporated principality, Wales, form an united kingdom. The UK can decide to continue the union jack as it reflects the glorious history of once the greatest empire on the world. See Russia, where tsarist symbols and the tsarist flag are in use again despite not having any Tsar anymore.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The tricky part is the group who is eligible to vote in the Scottish referendum. These are roughly all EU and Commonwealth citizens registered as resident of Scotland. This means that Scots who have left Scotland and reside, for an example, in Londen can not vote. That group is very likely to say "no" against a break-up because they work and live outside Scotland and probably are more pro-Union. Their votes will be missing. Another tricky part is the enlargement of the electorate with 16 and 17 year olds. This very young and new electorate is most likely not at all attached to Queen and Country and have an optimistic view of glorious independent Scotland and seem more likely to say "Yes" in a Scottish independence. The third tricky part is that the "Yes"-camp seem more determined to go to the polling station and cast their vote while the "No"-camp maybe already has the idea that Scotland remains in the Union anyway and have less determination to go. Their missing votes have the chance to let the "Yes"-camp win the referendum.

We will see how it turns out. For so far all polls seem to indicate a victory for the "No"-camp but not at all a convincing landslide victory. It still can go both ways.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

The debate on Scottish Independence is hotting up and the papers are looking at all sorts of angles.



The Scottish Nationalist Party (name defines position) has always said that they wanted to have the Queen as Monarch - in effect to be another realm.



The Daily Express has said that this would not be Scotland's decision but of the UK Government. Here is (not very good) article which puts forward the proposal that if the Queen is not available, then they could follow the Stuart line.



House of Stuart's Duchess of Alba could become next Queen of Scotland if independence vote | UK | News | Daily Express



This is just trying to stir things up but it left me with the question - Who's decision is it? Is it UK Government who decides? Interested in opinions









If there is a thread about Scottish Independence and Royal outcomes, apologies and could Mods move this

Many British/English Republicans are hoping that an Independent Scotland would abolish the monarchy and that would lead to republican sentiment rising up in N. Ireland, Wales, and England. I do believe that if Scotland becomes independent and there was a referendum on the monarchy, it would win by a landslide. Even many Yessers are horrified about the idea of President Salmond.

And as for the Duchess of Alba's "claim" on the Scottish throne, it's a load of twaddle, and even the Duchess know's it!


His Grace, The Duke

 

[PrincessOfPeace]

Queen 'horrified' at prospect of Scotland breaking away from UK

The Queen beamed as she attended Scotland's Braemar Gathering but privately her mood is said to be far less sunny as a constitutional crisis looms.

Buckingham Palace aides have revealed the Queen has a "great deal of concern" that Scotland will vote to leave the United Kingdom.
Palace officials have publicly insisted Her Majesty is neutral over the issue of independence despite the threat to her own position as queen of Scotland.

The 88-year-old monarch appeared in good spirits as she and the royal family attended this weekend's Highland Games in Scotland.
But privately she is said to be very worried as the latest referendum poll showed the Yes campaign taking the lead for the first time with little more than a week to go to the vote.

Queen 'horrified' at prospect of Scotland breaking away from UK

The growing prospect of Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom has sparked a ‘great deal of concern’ in Buckingham Palace, sources close to the Queen have revealed.
Senior palace aides are increasingly concerned that the Queen will be thrown into the centre of a constitutional crisis in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote on September 18.
Experts have suggested she may be forced to appoint an Australian-style ‘governor general’ to rule in her name.
Prime Minister David Cameron is in Balmoral, Aberdeenshire, with the Queen today and is expected to hold talks over the crisis. Mr Cameron has travelled alone without his wife Samantha.

The Queen 'concerned' over surge in support for Scottish independence | Mail Online

 

[BritishRoyalist]

What I don't like about these polls (same with U.S Elections) is that they are not very accurate and don't give you a clear picture! There are 2 million peoples who live in Scotland. These polls only ask between 800-1100 peoples so I wouldn't be too concerned with these polls. I kniw many Scottish peoples on my Royalty Facebook page who have said they never gotten any polling calls concerning Scottish Independence.

LeadingUp to the U.S 2012 Elections many polls showed Romney winning. Obama ended up winning a Second Term.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[cepe]

This is a personal reply to recent tweets.

I am British first, then English (place of birth and domicile) but my family (mum and dad) are rooted in Scotland and Ireland.

I want the Union to remain but I am still troubled that I have no say. this hurts because I am British and it is my country that could be divided. And if Scotland leave The Union, that will be painful to me.

I have considered what Id need to know to make my own decision (as if I were voting) and there are too many unknowns, including my currency, my pension and my defence. the answers are not available.

If they decide to leave then I'l respect their decision but realise that there is no coming back.

It is very difficult

 

[Al_bina]

It will be interesting to see if the possible Scottish Independence will negatively affect the UK. The British sycophantic politicians are pathetic though.

 

[cepe]

It will be interesting to see if the possible Scottish Independence will negatively affect the UK. The British sycophantic politicians are pathetic though.

i am appalled by your reply. It shows a complete lack of respect for GB and its people.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Cepe, I can identify with your feelings on this. As an Ulster-Scot, I grew up very aware of my Scottish heritage. We always wanted Scottish sports teams to do well because, although we were British first and foremost, we were almost equally Northern Irish and Scottish. The idea of Scottish independence is incredibly distressing for me and my whole family.

On a broader level, I have no doubt that it is probably even more distressing for the Queen and the RF. I have zero doubt that HM does not want to go down in history as the monarch under whom the United Kingdom was destroyed. She must also be aware that the Monarchy's days are numbered in an independent Scotland, whatever the nationalists say in public.

All of this must also be very worrying for Kings Felipe and Philippe. Given the separatist movements in Spain and Belgium, I'll bet they're watching this situation with no small amount of apprehension.

 

[Al_bina]

i am appalled by your reply. It shows a complete lack of respect for GB and its people.

One has to be pragmatic. It would be naive and short-sighted to care about emotions. That is what we heard from your sleazy politician in 1990s. If there is an end of the Union, it will be a local-level tragedy for certain individuals. That is all.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Don't really care how the English or Queen feels, this is about what is best for Scotland and it's people.

 

[cepe]

One has to be pragmatic. It would be naive and short-sighted to care about emotions. That is what we heard from your sleazy politician in 1990s. If there is an end of the Union, it will be a local-level tragedy for certain individuals. That is all.

i am so sorry for you.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Don't really care how the English or Queen feels, this is about what is best for Scotland and it's people.

What about us Northern Irish? Or the Welsh? Are we not allowed an opinion on the imminent destruction of our country? This decision has enormous ramifications for the rest of the UK and also Europe.

This is an emotional issue for many of us. You "don't really care", but many of us do.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Are you Scottish? Then nope don't care about your feelings either. This is a question of Scottish independence and the future of their country. You, the Irish or the Welsh want to stay with England by all means go for it, but don't force others to do the same when they are ready to move on.

 

[cepe]

Don't really care how the English or Queen feels, this is about what is best for Scotland and it's people.

Imagine if 3-4 major states decided to secede from the Union? The impact on your country? On other states? On the Federal system? On where you can travel and wheee you cant???

Would you feel anything? Would you care? Would you be concerned about the end of the United States as ypu know it?

i hurt because my country is under threat And I have no recourse.

judging by the responses so far, I regret opening up on this forum. Thats sad.