(Edinburgh) The death of Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland forever links the destiny of this region to that of the sovereign. But his disappearance also revives the burning debate of recent years on the independence of the constituent country.
Posted yesterday at 10:59 p.m.
In Edinburgh, where the coffin of the sovereign arrived on Sunday, security barriers were necessary to contain the crowd who had come to greet their queen one last time. Everywhere, the portrait of Elizabeth II adorns the Scottish capital, from shop windows to billboards.
Archie Nicol, who came at the age of 67 from Kintore (north of Scotland) to Balmoral to meditate, believes that the queen is one of “the foundations of the United Kingdom” and “one of the things that have helped to preserve unity” of the country, particularly in the face of Scottish independence movements.
But will the now King Charles III, less popular than his mother, be able to embody this figure who guarantees the unity of the nation? Some political commentators and experts doubt it, believing that this moment of mourning could further weaken already damaged ties.
“The passage of the Crown is a moment of vulnerability, perhaps even fragility”, judge in The Herald Adam Tomkins, jurist and professor of constitutional law at the University of Glasgow, even though the independence movement has been growing in Scotland for a few years.
“The Union in Peril”
In power since 2007 in Scotland, the Scottish Independence Party (SNP) has experienced a resurgence after Brexit, the British province having voted 62% to remain within the European Union.
Despite the repeated refusal of the British government, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced at the end of June that she wanted to organize a new referendum on independence on October 19, 2023. A decision which will be examined on October 11 and 12 by the British Supreme Court.
The Scots had already been consulted on the subject in 2014 and had voted 55% to remain within the United Kingdom. But the SNP believes Brexit has been a game-changer and the Queen’s death, a symbol of continuity, could give Scots one more reason to take the leap.
“The Union (between Scotland and the rest of the UK) is probably more in jeopardy now that it is gone,” warns in the DailyMail journalist Andrew Neil. “King Charles will love Scotland just as much as the Queen,” he adds. “But he just doesn’t have his authority. »
“Some Scots will see the end of this era as a natural time for a new beginning,” said Scottish journalist Alex Massie in the Times.
“Queen of Scots”
However separatist it may be, the SNP does not necessarily call for a break with the monarchy. Mme Sturgeon had quickly offered his “deepest condolences” on Thursday at the news of the Queen’s death, hailing her life of “dedication and extraordinary service”.
SNP founder Alex Salmond, a former Scottish Prime Minister, even coined the term “Queen of Scots” and forged close ties with Charles when he was a prince.
The new king also had a special relationship with Scotland: in addition to his penchant for kilts, Charles III spent part of his adolescence in a strict Scottish boarding school and owned several residences there.
Some regional newspapers, such as the Daily Recordeven see his well-known commitment to ecology as an opportunity for Scotland, hoping that the sovereign will push the province to get rid of its coal mines and its industrial past to become a driving force in green energies.
But the Scots remain “significantly more reserved towards the House of Windsor than English voters”, recalls journalist Alex Massie, inviting Nicola Sturgeon to listen to “duty” to offer “a republican future to Scotland” .
Only 45% backed the monarchy, in a poll by think tank British Future in June ahead of the Queen’s Jubilee, while 36% wanted to move to a Republic. With the death of this symbolic figure, the gap could narrow or even reverse the trend.