Today, St. Andrew’s Day, the Scottish Government launches its white paper on independence, setting out what an independent Scotland would look like. The reality, as many commentators have pointed out, is that independence is not likely in the short term given the SNP’s minority administration and the conspiracy of the other three parties against independence. If it is the case that the SNP merely wants to ‘raise the bar’ of expectations and force the other parties towards ‘Devolution Max,’ the granting of full fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament, this is a clever strategy but it risks missing the point of independence in the first place. ‘Devolution Max’ would mean that Scotland is independent in every sense other than in the true constitutional sense; but the point of the struggle for Scottish independence throughout the centuries has been the contention that the ‘Rogues’ Parliament’ of 1707 had no right to approve the Act of Union in the first place. Intimately tied to this contention is the belief that the Scottish Parliament must have the right to determine the succession to the throne of Scotland independently from the English Parliament – it was fear that Scotland would exercise this right, after all, that led England to annexe Scotland in an unequal union in the first place.
‘Devolution Max’ would leave Scotland with no control of foreign affairs or defence; in other words, Scotland would be de facto independent but would be deprived of the symbols of sovereignty. Its men and women would be expected to fight and die under a foreign flag and Scotland would have no representation on the world stage. It may be that the SNP believes that these considerations will ultimately lead to full independence when people see that ‘Devolution Max’ is working well, but this seems a somewhat cynical and back-to-front approach. The argument for Scottish independence should start with the constitution and then move on to the practical benefits of independence for Scotland; first and foremost, independence is Scotland’s right.
The white paper will reiterate SNP policy that England and Scotland should remain in personal union; for this purpose the Westminster Parliament would have to pass a Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act analogous to that of 1927, since the Queen would have to be re-styled and so would the Westminster Parliament. Exactly what the Queen’s new style would be is unclear. She would presumably have to give up the title ‘Queen of the United Kingdom’ since the original sense of the United Kingdom was England, Scotland and Ireland post 1801. If both the Act of Union of 1801 and the Act of Union of 1707 were repealed the title would seem pointless, although since the Act of Union of 1801 has not been repealed with respect to the Six Counties one could make a tenuous constitutional argument for retaining that title – but the constitutional status of the north of Ireland is by no means clear and I doubt that anyone would want to hinge a constitutional argument upon them. The title ‘Queen of Great Britain’ could theoretically remain since it was first used by James I and VI in 1603 to mark the personal union of his two kingdoms – indeed, the title ‘King of Great Britain’ was also used by the Jacobite kings as a short hand for ‘King of England and Scotland’. However, it is questionable whether two future constitutional monarchies – England and Scotland – would consider it acceptable for the monarch to unite the countries in one phrase in her title. They might insist on separate national titles since in a personal union, no such entity as ‘Great Britain’ would exist except in the person of the monarch. We are left, I think, with two possibilities:
Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith
Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Defender of the Faith
However, problems arise even for the second title since if England and Scotland are present in it as independent countries, it would seem strange for Northern Ireland to be present in the title as part of a fragmentary ‘United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland’. Furthermore, given the present constitutional status of Wales as an entity in some sense separate from England, it would seem strange for Wales to make no appearance. Finally, a court in an independent Scotland could overturn the 1951 ruling that styles and titles are a matter of Royal Prerogative and advise the Queen to style herself Elizabeth I in Scotland, so that her title in Scotland could be:
Elizabeth I, by the Grace of God, Queen of Scotland
In other words, personal union with Scotland could undo the process of amalgamating royal titles that has been underway for several centuries, and could create incompatible royal titles that could only be used in one country at a time.
However, there are potential benefits to a personal union between England and Scotland in a constitutional monarchy, in the sense that the monarch will be freed from subservience to one government by the fact that she is subservient to another as well. Handled in the right way, this dual status of the monarchy could lead to greater royal freedom, in the sense that in a disagreement between England and Scotland it would not be feasible for either nation fully to control the monarch’s contribution.
Furthermore, few have realised that an independent Scotland would almost inevitably result in the disestablishment of that strange monster, the Church of Scotland. An independent Scottish Government would be unlikely to look with favour on the idea of an established church, especially given the growing population of Glasgow and its Catholic majority.






