Michael Settle: Major problems await King Charles III

Across the way at Westminster, sitting unusually on a Saturday, senior politicians swore oaths of loyalty to the new monarch as more MPs continued their tributes to his mother, whom Boris Johnson, in arguably his best Commons speech, hailed as “Elizabeth the Great”.

The Queen’s death at Balmoral came on a day, which otherwise would have been dominated by the UK Government’s energy plan and the political pressure on our new premier to “deliver for our country”.

While Downing St made clear the UK Government’s plan to legislate for a £150bn package of help with energy bills would not be affected by the 10 days of national mourning for the late Queen and with Westminster’s sitting being cancelled for the next week, the unexpected hiatus will give Liz Truss some respite from the media spotlight and provide time for her to craft her policy that will determine the success or otherwise of her Government.

It’s expected the fiscal statement from Kwasi Kwarteng, the Chancellor, detailing the Government’s energy price guarantee, will come after the Queen’s funeral, expected Monday week, and just before the UK Parliament rises for the conference recess.

Charles, highly opinionated as Prince of Wales, has made clear that those days are over and he will respect the constitutional role, which means the sovereign maintains a mystical distance and does not get directly involved in politics.

Yet there were rare times, either privately or publicly, when his mother, tested the protocols of non-intervention.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher was against imposing sanctions on South Africa over its government’s abhorrent policy of apartheid but the Queen was said to have been in a “rage” and made it clear privately to the then PM that, as head of the Commonwealth, she was in favour of slapping sanctions on Pretoria.

Such was the sovereign’s anger at her PM, she considered cancelling the weekly audience, believing Thatcher’s position would harm “her Commonwealth”.

Fast forward to 2014 and the Queen’s most famous recent testing of the constitutional protocols, which came during the Scottish independence referendum campaign.

After a poll put the Yes campaign ahead, panic gripped Whitehall.

David Cameron, the then PM, was at Balmoral Castle, trying to reassure his royal hosts that everything would be fine. Years later, he recalled how he had discreetly asked for the sovereign’s help; it’s not known if this was directly or indirectly.

At the time, Cameron insisted he was “not asking for anything that would be in any way improper or unconstitutional but just a raising of the eyebrow, even a quarter of an inch, we thought would make a difference”.

Days later, the Queen obliged and at Craithie Kirk she calmly walked over to some well-wishers and said she hoped Scots would think “very carefully” about the future when they voted in a few days’ time. The message was clear.

Cameron recalled the monarch’s intervention “helped to put a slightly different perception on things”.

After the No campaign triumphed the PM was in New York where he was overheard injudiciously telling the city’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a fellow Conservative, how the Queen had “purred down the line” when he rang to tell her the referendum result.

Cameron later apologised for his political misstep. But, from his perspective, the most important thing was that the Union – along with his political future – had, for the time being, been saved.

Of course, it came as no surprise that HMQ was pro-Union. Indeed, only this week in her Commons tribute to the late monarch, Truss told MPs how the Queen was “devoted to the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

One unknown is what Elizabeth’s passing will have on Scotland’s continuing constitutional debate. Will it make independence more popular with Scots or make no difference? And will the succession of Charles III encourage a surge in republicanism across the UK? Only time will tell.

Interestingly, Alba Party’s chief official, Chris McEleny claimed this week that there would be “no place” for King Charles in an independent Scotland, describing the prospect after a Yes vote of keeping the monarch - as the SNP officially want - as “patently absurd”.

But McEleny’s comments caused a stir in some quarters not so much for his republican beliefs, which some Nationalists share, but the fact he aired them so soon after the Queen’s death. Indeed, among those attending the Accession Council were Nicola Sturgeon and, in a different part of the room, her predecessor as FM, Alex Salmond, leader of the Alba Party.

Going forward, another potential political problem for King Charles will be that the Queen’s death could not only have an impact on the Scottish and republican debates here but also on whether more Commonwealth countries will follow Barbados’s example and seek to cut the constitutional ties with Britain and become republics.

The period of mourning gives the country a time to pause and reflect. Indeed, it might be partially welcomed by some as it creates an unusual break from the constant cut-and-thrust of party politics.

Curiously, this past week has not only seen a new prime minister but also a new sovereign; a double change, which might unsettle some but opens a new chapter in our history.

When political battle resumes, the disputes and challenges that were present before the Queen’s demise, will re-surface.

We can only wish the integrity and calm dignity, which the Queen showed over many years, will act as an example to how our political life and the governance of the country should be pursued.

I fear, however, as politicians eagerly re-engage, this will be one more example of the failure of hope over experience.