Ian Johnstone (Letters, September 21) is of course correct that the current monarch is the first Elizabeth to be Queen of Scots (not Scotland, as here it is the people who are sovereign, and she is Queen by our consent) and the first Elizabeth to be Queen in the UK. But it is also a fact that she is not the first Queen Elizabeth in England.
When the present Queen ascended the throne, the numeral to follow her name was the cause of a bit of a stooshie. For instance pillar boxes bearing her name and the numeral II were set on fire. However the PM at the time (Winston Churchill) was quite adamant not just about the application of the numeral II, but that her coronation at Westminster was THE coronation, so that when she came to St Giles in Edinburgh it should be for no more than a service of thanksgiving, with not even the merest hint of a coronation (for instance no dressing up).
This, I think, is some evidence for the view that as far as the English establishment is concerned, the Treaty of Union in 1707 was not a union or a merger of Scotland and England, but a takeover by the latter of the former. Indeed more recently, in February 2013, in their legal advice to the Westminster government on International Law, Professors Crawford and Boyle venture the opinion (at paragraph 37) that, "For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707 [was a new state created, or did England continue under a new name]. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state."
Mr Johnstone is quite right to say that the present monarch is the first Elizabeth of the UK, but Churchill's policy at the time of her accession, and the numeral applied to her, clearly suggests the view that Scotland was “extinguished … by merger ... into an enlarged and renamed England”.
Alasdair Galloway,
14 Silverton Avenue,
Dumbarton.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel