I think this is a very interesting subject and I would like to learn more. Scottish people today take pride in their heritage and identity, and would take offense being called anything other than Scottish, or "Citizen of UK". Even calling them "British" annoyed some, at least on YouTube. But I don't really know what to call them, isn't British the demonym of UK? You couldn't really call someone UK'ian. I'm almost set on calling them Britannic.
Statesmanship today is a complicated thing, especially concerning monarchies, and as I'm an avid Paradox Gamer (still layman tho) I'm questioning the legality of splitting the union.
First I assumed, that United Kingdom actually is a personal union of the crowns of England, Scotland (and Ireland). TIL this actually was the case, until Act of Union in 1707. Two crowns would have been simpler; a king could usurp the crown of Scotland and declare independence (sure, still a hostility). So I expected, that if Scotland left UK, Queen Elizabeth would still reign over Scotland as a monarch.
But with a united crown, it seems a little more complicated, right? Because Scotland would never be independent from the English lineage. Scotland, even as an independent nation, would pretty much be "owned" by the crown in Buckingham?
I know the concept of a "United Kingdom" is to unify the nations. But this is not the case. The monarch of United Kingdom is today a symbol of exclusive Englishness; if anything, a republic would represent Scottish interests better than a crown in London.
Is there something I've missed or got wrong? Would appreciate insight.
Source: reddit post