One option in the future is the that United Kingdom refers to the monarchy not the government. If Scotland became Independent, they could retain the monarchy. So you could argue the kingdoms are united, but different governments "serve" the monarch in different countries. This would require England and Wales to come up with a new name for their new country unless Wales also asked for independence.
True,but they were colonies that were under the British Empire, rather than being made part of the UK, that slowly gained dominion status granted self-governance that eventually came full governance. The United Kingdom was formed around 1707, between England and Scotland. Ireland was joined in 1801. Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1921 coming a dominion until becoming a republic and cutting all ties to the monarchy.
My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country, not as an entity. Which would be either largely symbolic, or something closer to the EU in design
> My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country
But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over which the monarch is sovereign?
Of course there is precedent for having a government in exile (which claims a territory it has no control over), and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which doesn't claim any territory at all), but I think if you want the "UK" to refer to an institution, then it should stand for "the United Kingship".
The monarch would be sovereign, but he/she/they would execute their powers through different elected assemblies in different parts of the Kingdom. The two assemblies would have no influence over each other.
Not sure the monarch has really executed its powers over government since ousting Lord Melbourne in the 1830s. So it really is just about tradition and pageantry.
