Game of thrones

The proposed Scottish coronation, under current SNP plans (your report, 25 April) could only take place if London agreed the date and monarch’s availability.

A shared monarchy, as Norway saw in 1905, is a nonsense, as an independent Scotland could not guarantee the presence of its head of state on any particular day.

We could, of course, claim back the Queen, as she is ours, and let London find its own head of state which it should have done in 1603, but the idea is by now absurd.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

If the Yes campaign wishes to be taken seriously, it will have to abandon glib acceptance of the status quo and open up serious debate about how an independent Scotland would be ruled, including currently closed options such as presidency or split monarchy.

William Aitken

Easter Warriston


The crowning of the monarch in Westminster Abbey has always been and always will be a quintessentially English occasion.

I well recall the fierce indignation in Scotland in 1953 when Queen Elizabeth was crowned in the English succession, in succession to a monarch who had ordered the judicial murder of our Scottish Queen.

My grandmother used to tell me there were similar, if more muted, protests in January 1901 when Edward VII was crowned in the succession of the Hammer of the Scots, a history which she insisted nobody in Westminster seemed remotely aware of.

Edward VIII never actually reached a coronation, of course, but, if he had, there can be no doubt it would have been yet another powerful reminder that there will always be an England and a Church of England.

This will happen yet again when Prince William is crowned as King William V in the succession of William the Conqueror.

There is only one way to stop this repeated Royal put-down of Scotland in its tracks and that is to have a Scottish coronation.

It must, however, be a coronation which reflects the current diversity of the Scottish nation and people.

Alan Clayton

Letters way

Strachur, Argyll

The Scottish Government’s response to the Kirk’s proposal implies that it believes that Scotland would become a Commonwealth realm, a member of the British Commonwealth that has the UK monarch as its head of state.

As it pointed out, none of these realms hold separate coronations (so why should Scotland be different?).

In fact, a newly independent Scotland would be a tabula rasa, where any option is available. It could apply to become a member of the British Commonwealth, or it could invite some high-born individual to become its independent monarch. It could decide not to have a monarch and to become a republic!

Surely referenda would be needed to resolve this issue.

It should not be assumed that independence would automatically bring about a monarchy and that the UK monarch would become that monarch.

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan