Ian Johnstone (Letters, September 21) is of course correct that the current monarch is the first Elizabeth to be Queen of Scots (not Scotland, as here it is the people who are sovereign, and she is Queen by our consent) and the first Elizabeth to be Queen in the UK. But it is also a fact that she is not the first Queen Elizabeth in England.

When the present Queen ascended the throne, the numeral to follow her name was the cause of a bit of a stooshie. For instance pillar boxes bearing her name and the numeral II were set on fire. However the PM at the time (Winston Churchill) was quite adamant not just about the application of the numeral II, but that her coronation at Westminster was THE coronation, so that when she came to St Giles in Edinburgh it should be for no more than a service of thanksgiving, with not even the merest hint of a coronation (for instance no dressing up).

This, I think, is some evidence for the view that as far as the English establishment is concerned, the Treaty of Union in 1707 was not a union or a merger of Scotland and England, but a takeover by the latter of the former. Indeed more recently, in February 2013, in their legal advice to the Westminster government on International Law, Professors Crawford and Boyle venture the opinion (at paragraph 37) that, "For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707 [was a new state created, or did England continue under a new name]. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state."

Mr Johnstone is quite right to say that the present monarch is the first Elizabeth of the UK, but Churchill's policy at the time of her accession, and the numeral applied to her, clearly suggests the view that Scotland was “extinguished … by merger ... into an enlarged and renamed England”.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue,