Should the monarchy end with the Union?

Majority of voters are now calling for the end of the historic Act of Union that replaced Scotland and England (which Wales was apart of) with a new Country called Great Britain.

If this goes ahead, SNP get their majority in Scotland and we decide that we should all shake hands and break-up, should the Monarchy be ended as well? Four independent nations (unless NI joins with the Republic of Ireland) sharing the same Head of State may not be a good thing and could lead to more tension. We may not see it as independence if we are all sharing the same King/Queen, plus i doubt it will go down well if the Monarchy stays in England in Scotland or Wales.

Should we simply become Republics to end all ties?

Scotland kept its independence with respect to it's legal and religious systems, but coinage, taxation, sovereignty, trade , parliament and flag became one.

An end to the Act of Union would just cause more suspicion and mistrust between the countries. The Scots feared that they would simply become another region of England, being swallowed up as had happened to Wales some four hundred years earlier.

England relied heavily on Scottish soldiers, and to have them turn and join ranks with the French would have been disastrous.

Majority of voters are now calling for the end of the historic Act of Union

- I really doubt this is true.

Monarchy may end (or become so irrelevant and shunted away as to become invisible) but I just don't see the Unions ending.
There's too much in it for all of us compared with the alternative.

That's not to say a looser Union won't develop, as in some ways it already is.

Even if, for instance, the SNP were to become the biggest single party this time around in the Scottish Parliamentary elections that would
firstly not necessarily mean they held a majority of the vote (this would be a highly unlikely result) and
secondly elections to the Scottish Parliament are not a vote for independance (which would be held separately).

Despite nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland I see absolutely no sign of formal separation being a desire of the majority of the Scot or Welsh peoples.

I do look forward to a 'border poll' in Northern Ireland - not boycotted by any group this time, unlike the last.
We would at least get a fair idea of where NI stands in relation to the issue.......I suspect that the closest result for a formal separation would be seen there but whether or not a majority exists for a disolution of the Union there is very much open to question.

I also find any inference that either Scot or Welsh (or any of the Irish for that matter) have simply become 'the strange sounding English' utterly wrong.
England never did just 'swallow them up'.

It simply hasn't ever been possible for England to completely take over and totally eradicate the native cultures of any of the 'home nations' - and that is despite centuries of trying and where the most brutal and murderous means were at times employed.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

It should be noted that Scotland and England were under a single monarchy before the union was created so I see no reason for it to be drastically affected if the union was to break up.

btw great Britain isn't a country.

Originally posted by Edn
btw great Britain isn't a country.

It is under the Act of Union.

Thats why its called the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Originally posted by infinite
Majority of voters are now calling for the end of the historic Act of Union that replaced Scotland and England (which Wales was apart of) with a new Country called Great Britain.

Well, not necessarily. The majority of voters polled by the media perhaps (which is usually about a thousand people from different areas - depends on who did the poll), but no one in any official capacity has asked me what I think on this issue and I'm eligible to vote

If the UK does break up I suspect it'll be after our lifetimes. Alas, Mr. Salmond won't be around to see the fruits of his labours (or lack thereof). It is still a very, very big 'if' at the moment, and not 'when'. There are the odd bouts of irrational nationalism within the UK, and they generally do subside... take a look at the BNP and its predecessor factions. They've been around since at least the end of the First World War and their popularity has ebbed and flowed, although such parties have never managed to become mainstream choices and challenge the three main parties.

As for the Monarchy... it depends very much on how the UK breaks up. It's very possible that an independent England might keep the monarchy to preserve some sort of identity, and it's also possible that Scotland might have one too (though it is less likely to when compared to England - the SNP's domestic policies are quite left wing so I find it unlikely that they'd bother to create a monarch if Scotland ever became independent). It throws up an odd constitutional position, since the monarch at the time of the decision to split the UK would have to effectively sign their own nation's downfall and their own abdication. Honestly it's difficult to know how it could be achieved... the Scottish Parliament couldn't vote to remove Scotland from the Union. To do so would require consent from the UK Parliament (and rightly so, because such a move would not just affect Scotland). And most MPs in the UK Parliament, I think, can see past the odd views that some nationalists take and perhaps have the better interests of the majority in mind. So whether it would pass through the Commons and the Lords is another matter. And then there's the problem of Royal Assent... which could potentially be difficult to acquire depending on the monarch.

But as I say, don't hold your breath. The UK as we know it has probably got at least a couple more centuries left in it, perhaps far more depending on future developments.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by Ste2652]

Well admittedly it's going back a little bit (but only a little bit) but I reckon in his heart of hearts Alex knows he spoke the truth about the majority of Scots earlier.

When all the other issues and complaints are stripped away and the single question is put I reckon it's not hard to see the likely answer......as indeed Alex was able to a wee while back.

ALEX Salmond admitted yesterday that most Scots did not want to live in an independent Scotland.

The SNP leader conceded during a television interview that his party’s overriding aim was not shared by the majority of the electorate. Instead, he argued that most Scots wanted to see the Scottish Parliament take on greater powers - an approach supported by the SNP and some other MSPs in the parliament.

But his admission that independence does not command majority support in Scotland was treated as a gaffe by his political opponents who claimed Mr Salmond had finally admitted that independence was not a priority for the people of Scotland.

news.scotsman.com...

well, the opinion poll has shot up since he said that.

But, as many say, England has the power to break up the Union. Many in the Scotish National Party want "political independence", even though full independence is a policy.

Originally posted by infinite
well, the opinion poll has shot up since he said that.

There you are, then. It fluctuates, just like people's thoughts on pretty much everything else (otherwise why doesn't one party always win every election? The answer is because people's thoughts and opinions on each party change over time, depending on a wide range of factors hence they may choose to vote for a different party at the next election to the one they voted previously). So the breakup of the UK might not be anywhere near as close as the opinion polls makes out (and I'm automatically sceptical of polls, anyway... they're very easy to fix). A year from now and Mr. Salmond and all his chums in the SNP will be complaining that Scots don't want independence again

[edit on 19-12-2006 by Ste2652]

[edit on 19-12-2006 by Ste2652]