You are quite right in that.
Article in the Observer today asking 'What did the Queen actually do, apart from turning up on time, smelling the paint, smiling, and keeping out of politics.
The worst thing Sturgeon could do right now will be to talk independence. The belligerent side of press, and public TBH, would eat her alive. Play the stateswoman, keep it dignified and in the immediacy of things
Id say once all the funeral stuff has settled down what we will see next is Charles trying to lovebomb Scotland, he will do lots of engagements up there visiting schools and hospitals to get on local tv. Would expect him to stay in Balmoral quite a bit as well in an effort to replicate the Queens 'love of Scotland' and curry favour with the natives.
Will be interesting to see how the media treat him up there. Already I recall that Balmoral (which is 50,000 acres so not a small place and they own even more than that in Scotland) is under different environmental laws to the rest of Scotland. This is becasue of an archaic law known as the Queens consent dating back to the 1700's. It allows the monarch of the day to be exempt from the same laws that their subjects have to live under. Its why we will never see the Queens final will and testament as a public document- she exempted herself from that law as well becasue the Royal Family dont want the public knowing their true wealth.
When recent climate change legislation was introduced in Scotland the Queen and her lawyers got her exempt from the new laws by trumping it with the Queens consent law. One of the climate change laws that came in was aimed at helping to reduce carbon emissions nationally. The law mandates the laying of underground pipework on anyones land to in order to facilitate energy from renewable sources like wind turbines. The Queen made sure that this new law did not apply to Balmoral and she got her lawyers to secure Balmoral an exemption from it. Now we have Charles the environmentalist on the throne it wont be too long before the Scottish media starts asking why every Scot has to permit their land to facilitate renewable energy but King Charles as the largest landowner in Scotland does not and is literally above the Scottish law.
I think that Sturgeon will be careful to keep the question of Monarchy as far removed from Independence.
In fact the question of independence should be kept away from details like Sterling, Faslane, armed services and defence, pensions, funding, etc. Copy the Brexit Leave campaign and be all things to all voters.
Booing in Edinburgh.
I'm curious to see what the next few independence polls are going to be like, and if the events of the last week will have any effect.
A lot of people had more of an affinity with the queen and not necessarily the institution of the Monarchy.
I think Charles in charge will not help the stability of the remaining remnants of the empire.
He can still be called James VI in Scotland though.
They also hold different titles as Charles was not prince of Wales in Scotland but referred to as duke of Rothesay.
They have already had that
James VI of Scotland became James I of England, and the just James I. So England is paramount.
Plenty of analysis out there Jim, from India to Australia they have been thinking about these things, for quite some time. Go forth and research and you might form an opinion youself.
From the Guardian
The Queen’s death is a precarious moment for some of Britain’s wider Commonwealth realm, 14 countries of which recognise the monarch as their head of state. In many cases their constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong republican movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts. This is expected to bring about a moment of political peril for the new monarch, who, after Barbados became a republic in 2021, could face the loss of another prominent part of the Caribbean Commonwealth.
Questions are also likely to arise in countries such as Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines over whether the new monarch could lawfully appoint a governor general, if the relevant country’s constitution has not been changed to refer to the King, and continues to refer to the Queen as head of state.
Long on opinion short on analysis.
The discussion is no longer academic. Interesting to see how this affects the Independence debate.
You could be for example Freddie II of England and Freddie IV of Scotland so they recognize a separate history.
I don't see why not but there's no need. If Scotland is to keep the monarchy then the current set up is fine. Whoever wins an election in an independent Scotland travels to see the monarch to ask to form a government in their name.
COuld they be 'unjoined' in the case of Scottish independence. That is, could Scotland go its own way and have their own, different monarch?
Appreciate it is all hypothetical, but for those few independent minded royalists?
Separate but joined. Whoever holds one holds the other. There is no British crown.
Is the King/Queen of Scotland a separate title or is it simply Queen of UK?
It could be a bit of a headache for the Scottish government. If Canada, Australia, etc. start making sounds that they will move towards the republic route, there will be calls by those pro-independence to signal the same. If the polls in Scotland start showing support for such a move, it leaves Sturgeon in a tough spot. Any move towards abolishing the monarchy will have the unionists citing it as evidence that the Scottish government won't be interested in safeguarding British culture.
I suspect the Scottish government's preference would be to get independence done with the head of state remaining the same, and then after a few years put it to a referendum as to whether there should be a Scottish republic. If the queen passes, then they will have to confront the issue of monarchy vs republic sooner than they would likely want.
I know that. I was just saying there would be a slew of new ones.
Still doesn't change my view that they will be leaving the CW or it will die from lack of interest
I don't think she has any say in the matter. It's really the prerogative of the prime minister and there's no way the current Tory party are going to compromise on something like that.
Something we haven't focused on is the effect that this will have on Northern Irish unionism. The loyalists for the last 70 years have been loyal to 'Her Majesty the Queen'. Goodness knows what effect Elizabeth passing and being replaced by Charles will have on the very concept of NI loyalism.
There is nothing inconsistent with a republic being a member of the commonwealth ask the 36 of 56 that are! You need a bit more analysis or fact checking, which ever.
The allegiance to one woman was touching but there was always going to be a day of reckoning. She really should have passed the baton on long ago and allowed a new vision emerge under her guidance. It was the only thing that might have saved it and the CW, if not the Union itself.
Really is a seismic event for the UK and how they handle it.
Yep. Can't see how that doesn't happen if Barbados of all places has the guts to ditch the monarchy.
It would have an effect on the Union (negative) in the best of times. Now, I think it could be a major catalyst to it's break-up. Commonwealth will fracture first though...a slew of new republics?
It's worth bearing in mind that the intention has never been for Scotland to become a republic (unlike our good selves) and that the British monarch would remain Scottish head of state after independence. But certainly, if and when Her Majesty passes away, it raises all sorts of questions for the future of the UK, for Scotland and Northern Ireland and for the Commonwealth. We are definitely heading into unchartered waters.
I appreciate it's a bit ghoulish on my part, given she's still with us: I wonder how - or if - Elizabeth II's passing might change the narrative on Scottish independence, if at all? It's interesting how she's spending her final days in Scotland in the first place (and apparently her favourite home); she reigned for 70 years, and became a bit of a "permanent" symbol of constancy while the UK itself saw seismic changes; a loss of empire, huge internal conflict in NI, increased diversification of the population, social liberalism taking hold, alongside the shift towards modernity and the digital age.
I can't help wondering if in the absence of that through-line, there'll be a subtle introspective shift North of the border - and what the result would be. Does the union become weakened by such a broadly popular, longstanding monarch? Would Scottish unionism become weak gruel in the face of King Charles, while Undecided find the prospect of someone who isn't Lizzy as head of state unappealing. Or indeed: would the move for independence shrink under the thinking that it was "too soon" after Elizabeth's passing, a sense of retrospective solidarity? Interesting times ahead.
Scotland
That's your own personal take which is fair enough, but my question was asking it from the perspective of a Scottish person that wants to be in the EU. What are they to do when the two main British parties have ruled out the possibility of rejoining the EU? Are they to be expected to deal with a poorer economy, loss of Erasmus and all the rest of it, and simply wait for the English to change tack - if they ever will? That isn't tenable, and it's why Brexit was such a disaster for unionism.
In other news, I enjoyed this comment by Sturgeon in the aftermath of Truss' vote win.
Slightly off topic.
Didn't it take 500 years for the English to stop using the Fluer-de-lis ?
