Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Prince William today suggested the growing threat of Scottish independence was more important than the news his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, was expecting again.
The Duke said Catherine, who is suffering acute morning sickness, was ‘feeling okay’ after a ‘tricky few days’.
But he added: ‘It’s important that we all focus on the big news and the big international and domestic things that are going on at the moment. That’s what my thoughts are at the moment.’
The remarks could be seen as a direct Royal intervention into the looming independence referendum just days after sources said the Queen was ‘concerned’ at the surge in support for separation.
Click to expand...
Prince William urges people to focus on 'domestic' news rather than Royal baby joy | Mail Online
 
It sounds from the polls that the majority of scots (although by not much) will say yes in 10 days time. I wonder if it becomes independent if it will become just like Australia or Canada which have the queen as head. I very much doubt about the house of Alba being invited to claim the Scotland throne!


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
 
:previous:
The funny thing is this poll is from YouGov which was showing the biggest no lead from all the polls and now suddenly shows a yes lead. But another poll from a pro yes pollster shows a no lead of four points.
 
Mbruno said:
The Windsors are supposed to be neutral, but they have been sending clear signals that they are worried about Scottish independence from the UK. How are voters reacting to statements like the one above by Prince William ?
Click to expand...

no reaction at all. In the mix of events worldwide and domestic, a married couple having a 2nd child is not news. Most people in the UK would agree. ITs only royal followers and royal journos who take it v seriously as news
 
Mbruno said:
The Windsors are supposed to be neutral, but they have been sending clear signals that they are worried about Scottish independence from the UK. How are voters reacting to statements like the one above by Prince William ?
Click to expand...


His comment was a generic reference to domestic and international events and nothing specific about Scotland at all so nothing wrong in his statement. His reference to 'domestic' matters could just as easily have related to the Invictus Games as to the Scottish issue.
 
cepe said:
no reaction at all. In the mix of events worldwide and domestic, a married couple having a 2nd child is not news. Most people in the UK would agree. ITs only royal followers and royal journos who take it v seriously as news
Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious to me that Prince William was not exactly referring to a "mix of domestic events", but clearly had the Scottish referendum in mind at least as far as the "domestic side" of his comment is concerned. My question was how voters react to the Royal Family's sending signals that they oppose independence when they are supposed to be neutral .
 
Who can tell Mbruno.. those who wish to break up the UK will say its 'grist to their Mill'.. Those who don't will be pleased... and vote accordingly...
 
Mbruno said:
It is pretty obvious to me that Prince William was not exactly referring to a "mix of domestic events", but clearly had the Scottish referendum in mind at least as far as the "domestic side" of his comment is concerned. My question was how voters react to the Royal Family's sending signals that they oppose independence when they are supposed to be neutral .
Click to expand...


Well what's obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone else. I imagine most of the monarchy thinks that the UK is stronger together, which it is. But The Queen is used to this, not so close to home perhaps but a country should do right by it's people. If it's what Scotland wants that's that. The Queen nor the Monarchy won't away anyone's minds.

William's comments were about the wider societal picture right now. Do you think with Catherine's HG, he's even read the YouGov poll? I doubt it.
 
We cannot tell if yesterday’s announcement from Kensington Palace will make a jot of difference to the voting intentions of the Scottish people next week.
But it must surely have lifted spirits at Balmoral after a difficult weekend in which the Queen has found herself dragged into an independence debate which she had been studiously avoiding.
Precisely one year from now, the cameras will be circling Balmoral for an even greater royal milestone than the arrival of a baby. For it is on September 9, 2015, that Queen Elizabeth II will smash Queen Victoria’s record to become the longest-reigning monarch in our history.
While the public may want to celebrate this achievement, there won’t be a squeak from the Queen herself. She is not competitive about such things.
Click to expand...
Queen saw this coming when Blair began his meddling, by ROBERT HARDMAN* | Mail Online
 
wyevale said:
The EU has pronouced [in Olympian, magisterial terms] that there will be NO further accession counties accepted for membership until 2025... To allow 'intergration' to proceed smoothly [a pronouncement worthy of 'the BORG']. So good luck with that Scotland, Albania, Ukraine & Turkey...

The EU has had its hands burned badly by its 'Imperial overstetch' escapades in Kiev, and since the 25 existing members agree on [practically] nothing it is probably better for it to 'take stock', and do nothing precipitate .
Click to expand...

The main difference of course is that Scotland and the Scots are already members of the EU, but then as part of an Union. That is a total different situation than aspiring memberstates as Serbia or Turkey knocking on EU's door. When a memberstate splits in two different entities, we can be 99,99% sure that the EU will wringle itself in all possible directions to find a workable solution.
 
carlota said:
[....] I wonder if it becomes independent if it will become just like Australia or Canada which have the queen as head. I very much doubt about the house of Alba being invited to claim the Scotland throne!
Click to expand...

The intention is when Scotland leaves the Union, Her Majesty will become head of state of an independent Scotland indeed. She will become Elizabeth, Queen of Scots. The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, who also holds the Scottish titles Lord of the Isles as well Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, is the Number One in the line of succession. Followed by His Royal Highness Prince William, Earl of Strathearn.

It is not necessarily bad for the monarchy. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, a more outspoken Scottish profile for the Windsors can actually work in their advantage. Now they are the embodiment of an Union. So to see, if we have to believe the polls, the Union governed by "Westminster" can not count on a great enthusiasm amongst the Scots. The Queen is the embodiment of that unpopular Union, of "Westminster Rule". A bit more Edinburgh and a bit less Westminster would not do harm for the monarchy in Scotland, so is my impression as an outsider.

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
^Fully agree; the real issue seems to be that London is making all the choices, to the benefit of London and England, not Scotland.
 
AristoCat said:
^Fully agree; the real issue seems to be that London is making all the choices, to the benefit of London and England, not Scotland.
Click to expand...

Not all decisions are made in Westminster. There are local parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast that deal with Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish issues.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The intention is when Scotland leaves the Union, Her Majesty will become head of state of an independent Scotland indeed. She will become Elizabeth, Queen of Scots. The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, who also holds the Scottish titles Lord of the Isles as well Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, is the Number One in the line of succession. Followed by His Royal Highness Prince George, Earl of Strathearn.

It is not necessarily bad for the monarchy. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, a more outspoken Scottish profile for the Windsors can actually work in their advantage. Now they are the embodiment of an Union. So to see, if we have to believe the polls, the Union governed by "Westminster" can not count on a great enthusiasm amongst the Scots. The Queen is the embodiment of that unpopular Union, of "Westminster Rule". A bit more Edinburgh and a bit less Westminster would not do harm for the monarchy in Scotland, so is my impression as an outsider.

:flowers:
Click to expand...

You certainly know little about the SNP. There are alreadys MSPs in the party who are calling for a new referendum on abolishing the monarchy once Scotland becomes independent and the current Queen is deceased.

As for an independent Scotland joining the EU, it won't happen in the short run. Meanwhile, Scotland will have to set up its own currency and Central Bank as the UK will not share the pound and Scotland will not be eligible to join the Euro zone. Scotland will also have to pay for its own defense, welfare, etc, instead of relying on fiscal transfers from the Union. The moment that happens, Scots will realize how they were misled by Alex Salmond's promise of a utopian paradise and the many benefits they currently enjoy under the Union will finally become transparent.

In fact, from any sensible point of view, breaking up the UK is irrational, but, as history tells, nationalism always feeds on irrationality and passion.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely spot on.... Mbruno
 
I can not speak for the residents of Scotland who are eligible to vote. Prime Minister Cameron has given them the legal instrument of a democratic and binding referendum on the future of Scotland. If Mr Salmond and the SNP have a hidden desire for a Scottish Republic, it ultimately still are the Scots themselves answering the question whether they are willing to replace the King (Queen) of Scots by a president.

I think the independence actually will tie the Queen of Scots, the Duke of Rothesay and the Earl of Strathearn closer to the Scottish people than is the case now, with the royal family mainly associated with the Union. Mr Salmond and the SNP will not wage the Scottish monarchy as long as there is a sense of widespread goodwill and approval amongst the Scots to behold it.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The main difference of course is that Scotland and the Scots are already members of the EU, but then as part of an Union. That is a total different situation than aspiring memberstates as Serbia or Turkey knocking on EU's door. When a memberstate splits in two different entities, we can be 99,99% sure that the EU will wringle itself in all possible directions to find a workable solution.
Click to expand...

Well, Brussel allready said, that the Scots would have to reapply for membership, so I don't know how you come to your point.
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
The intention is when Scotland leaves the Union, Her Majesty will become head of state of an independent Scotland indeed. She will become Elizabeth, Queen of Scots. The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, who also holds the Scottish titles Lord of the Isles as well Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, is the Number One in the line of succession. Followed by His Royal Highness Prince William, Earl of Strathearn.

It is not necessarily bad for the monarchy. As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, a more outspoken Scottish profile for the Windsors can actually work in their advantage. Now they are the embodiment of an Union. So to see, if we have to believe the polls, the Union governed by "Westminster" can not count on a great enthusiasm amongst the Scots. The Queen is the embodiment of that unpopular Union, of "Westminster Rule". A bit more Edinburgh and a bit less Westminster would not do harm for the monarchy in Scotland, so is my impression as an outsider.

:flowers:
Click to expand...
How do you feel about Paris rule?
 
Mbruno said:
You certainly know little about the SNP. There are alreadys MSPs in the party who are calling for a new referendum on abolishing the monarchy once Scotland becomes independent and the current Queen is deceased.

As for an independent Scotland joining the EU, it won't happen in the short run. Meanwhile, Scotland will have to set up its own currency and Central Bank as the UK will not share the pound and Scotland will not be eligible to join the Euro zone. Scotland will also have to pay for its own defense, welfare, etc, instead of relying on fiscal transfers from the Union. The moment that happens, Scots will realize how they were misled by Alex Salmond's promise of a utopian paradise and the many benefits they currently enjoy under the Union will finally become transparent.

In fact, from any sensible point of view, breaking up the UK is irrational, but, as history tells, nationalism always feeds on irrationality and passion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! They might come running back.
 
Sharing the pound is ‘incompatible’ with independence, the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said today.
Mr Carney said a separate Scotland could not forge a currency union with the rest of the UK because it needed a shared central bank and controls over public spending.
The Bank chief, speaking at the Trades Union Conference in Liverpool, warned that without these in place Scotland would risk a Eurozone-style crisis.
Mr Carney’s remarks are a significant intervention against the Scottish National Party’s plans for independence.
Click to expand...
Sharing pound 'incompatible' with Scottish independence, Mark Carney warns | Mail Online
 
Trust me, the banking crises has shown that under pressure everything is possible. Who would ever have thought that giant renowned banks would tumble down? Who would have thought that a company as General Motors would go bankrupt? Who would have thought that the European Central Bank would give the Eurozone injections of 500 billion or more? The latest years have shown that under pressure everything is possible. The examples of Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, etc. have shown that states can split apart. The BRD and the DDR have also shown that states can merge again. Under pressure everything is possible. We can already witness it now, the total panic and disarray, the sudden stream of new promised powers, more devolution, just 10 days before the election. That is the proof: under pressure everything is possible. The pressure on Westminster is enormous now and look... Cameron, Miliband, Clegg: "Vote NO and we will do our utmost best to grant more powers to Scotland". Salmond: "Vote YES and you are boss in your own country". It is up to the Scots. I wish them wisdom and good happiness, whatever the outcome.
 
Last edited:
royalistbert said:
How do you feel about Paris rule?
Click to expand...

Trust me, "Paris" is loathed, Hollande is not for nothing the most unpopular President ever. The difference is however that, already under the absolutist monarchy, France is governed as a strong centralistic state: L'État, c'est moi! This is still the case at present. There are cultural differences in France but there is a strong sense of La France Profonde and unity is prevalent. This centralistic system, the State with its long tentacles interfering on the lowest levels, is very visible in France. The power of the State goes directly to the state schools, the public services, the municipalities and regions, even to companies as BNP Paribas, GDF Suez, Peugeot-Citroën, Air France-KLM, etc. you can see direct interference from "Paris". You can see it in French cities where the Mairie or Hôtel de Ville (municipal councils) are often in the shadow of the mighty Préfecture, never far away, which are the eyes and the ears of the almighty state. So, despite regional differences, there is little real separatism except maybe on the island Corse and in Pays Basque.

:flowers:
 
Last edited:
Why would the remainder of the UK want to be 'the lender of last resort' for a Scotland that has turned its back on us ? Already the Scots are regarded here as profligate [as regards public spending] and as having a 'benefits culture'. Why would we want to pay for that, in a FOREIGN country ?

It would be a mistake to underestimate the sense of betrayal we feel [already], and that will be compounded if the vote is 'YES'. The English public will not be in the mood to facilitate an easy exit, and [consequently] neither will Westminsters politicans...
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
The main difference of course is that Scotland and the Scots are already members of the EU, but then as part of an Union. That is a total different situation than aspiring memberstates as Serbia or Turkey knocking on EU's door. When a memberstate splits in two different entities, we can be 99,99% sure that the EU will wringle itself in all possible directions to find a workable solution.
Click to expand...

As an independent Country, Scotland will have to apply to join the EU. Brussels has said this on numerous occasions. If Scotland wants to be independent of the UK, then it has to establish its own credibility in the world. No automatic Euro, no automatic membership of the EU, no pound sterling currency.

All of these mean that the financial future of Scotland is uncertain.
 
As this is a Royal Forum, I focus on the royal part of this process: whatever the outcome, Queen Elizabeth will remain Queen of the United Kingdom and probably she will get another throne to sit on. That is it, in essence, for so far.

Whether the EU will allow Scotland to join or not, which currency the Scots will use after Independence Day: trust me, under pressure the impossible becomes possible. Scotland is a respected, modern and well-developed country with a high standard of living, a loyal member of NATO and there is no way that the EU will let the Scots go. I still expect a NO vote to win anyway, despite the shambles of the most amateuristic campaign I have seen (from the NO camp. The YES camp is almost in a comfy armchair now, witnessing the total disarray from the other side). From a royal viewpoint it does not matter very much, just more accent op Scottishness in case of a YES vote. It is very wise that Her Majesty has remained total impartial on this. Every word she utters on this matter will cause a debate. Parliamentarians calling her to speak out for the Union are short-sighted. What if the YES-camp wins and the Queen has publicly chosen the NO-camp? I am happy that Her Majesty has been wiser than some ill-advised MP's.
 
Last edited:
The Queen 'will be proud' to be the head of state for an independent Scotland, Alex Salmond claimed today.
The First Minister said he had an audience at Balmoral Castle two weeks ago but would not reveal what was discussed.

Speaking in Edinburgh today he dismissed press reports that the Queen is ‘concerned’ about the prospect of Scottish independence, adding: ‘I want the Queen as head of state, as Queen of Scots of an independent Scotland as her ancestors were.

‘I think Her Majesty the Queen, who has seen so many events in the course of her long reign, will be proud to be Queen of Scots, and indeed we would be proud to have her as monarch of this land.’

It came after Prince William urged voters to concentrate on important 'domestic news' following yesterday's revelation that his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, was pregnant
Click to expand...
Alex Salmond dismisses claims The Queen is 'concerned' at surge in support for independence | Mail Online
 
He will say ANYTHING to get the division he wants.

The Queens views on the Union were expressed some years ago in a speech to the assembled Houses of Parliament. She is far too wise to reiterate them now, but her views are a matter of public record.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
488
Tatiana Maria
T
H
Royal Fears and Phobias
Replies
9
Views
1K
Biri
B
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
452
Tatiana Maria
T
Somebody
  • Locked
The Commonwealth's hypothetical independent monarchies
Replies
9
Views
968
Zonk
Zonk

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom