Nice, Taljechin!

From a political science perspective, the separation of head of state from head of government makes excellent sense. It makes so much sense that even in nations that abhor royalty, such as France, they elect a head of state and a head of government. 

The problem with electing a head of state is that it becomes a political title that can be as contentious as the head of government. 

The United Kingdom is lucky to have a royal family that has the historical function of head of state. Of course, the Brits aren't sure of this, especially in a time of economic hardship. A monarchy can survive with fewer luxuries. The Royal family would do well to cut back as much as possible on these. But they do serve a real political function.

Well yes only a small majority and then only really because they couldn't decide what else to do, but I still find it remarkable. The Australians seem so amazingly self confident in every other way!

Scotland has plenty of reasons to dislike the way they've been treated, but the royal families did unify a good hundred years before the countries formally did, and then by inviting the current Scottish monarch to take over the English throne.

So an independent Scotland would still by default retain the current UK royal family as head of state. Don't know what level of support for republicanism there is right now, but I'd guess maybe not so high.

Dunno, if the Australians haven't (how?!!?) then I struggle to hold out hope for somewhere like Scotland! 

Especially since they are 'genuinely' the royal family of Scotland too rather than it coming via conquest. A putative independent Wales might be a different matter.

Antillian wrote on 04/06/12 at 15:32:24:

Probably true, though some former English colonies are known to have made it a lot more expensive...

Antillian wrote on 04/06/12 at 14:49:52:

I think that catering for a governor and his family is a lot cheaper than doing so for the royal family. You also miss out on the big costs for weddings, funerals and the likes. I know in the Dutch Antilles they have one as well and that is a real cheapskate in comparison. Costs are more like that of an embassador.

Markovich wrote on 04/06/12 at 10:28:12:

They're Scots, it is probably cheaper

Seriously though the same goes for Australia, Canada and some others. Saves money on a head of state since the Brits (and after Scottish independence the Welsh and English) are paying for it.

That's pretty funny, considering how so many Americans, particularly women, are fascinated by British royalty.  You would think this country had no history.

But I read that if Scotland becomes independent, it will still be nominally ruled by the Queen.  This strikes me as complete joke.  We very independent-minded and special Scots are going to have our very own government, but we're still going to k--s the Royal a--!?  And Balmoral will remain Royal property!?   

I am no great admirer of how the Irish govern themselves, but at least they had the good sense to declare a republic.