Previous posts in this discussion:
PostScotland and England's Union of Monarchs, Parliaments (from MIchael Frank) (John Eipper, USA, 05/04/21 3:15 am)
Michael Frank writes:
Scotland and England were united in two steps: union of crowns and union of parliaments. The first was the result of the mysterious (to this American) process of choosing kings. James the VI of Scotland was chosen as James I, king of England following the death of Elizabeth I. Thereafter, the crowns were forever joined as one. The second was the result of political processes (if not democratic process) more than a century later, at which time the parliaments were joined. I'm not sure if a popular vote is sufficient to reverse the union of parliaments, but possibly it is. I don't think a popular vote can reverse the union of crowns, which continue to remain joined and pass through the generations by primogeniture.
If Scotland became independent, would it be a republic, or would the Stuarts be resurrected as limited monarchs? Or would Elizabeth reign as queen of an independent Scotland? Not completely understanding the role of the crown in modern British governance, I'm not sure if it matters or how it would work.
JE comments: In James's day, England and Scotland were sovereign states in every way except for sharing a monarch. Is this the arrangement the Scottish independentists hope to recreate? I'm with Michael Frank that we Americans can never really understand this monarchical stuff, or (my view) even the need for one.
As a side note, has anyone in WAISworld read James's works The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron? In his writings, James is a strong proponent of the Divine Right of kings. He would say that, wouldn't he?