[Ahovking]

A planned 2014 referendum has a real change of making an independence Scotland or at least a kind of semi-separation called "devo max" in which the only responsibilities London has over Scotland is national defense. If Scotland does leave the UK then the "United Kingdom" Australians agreed to federate under would no longer exist. It is possible to envisage an Australian constitutional government existing if ‘our' United Kingdom ceases to exist.

[Lightman]

The current constitutional status of Australia has nothing to do with that of the United Kingdom. Legally speaking, Australia and the United Kingdom happen to share the same monarch.

Beyond that, I don't think Scotland's secession would have any legal bearing on the United Kingdom's existence as a state. The secession of the majority of Ireland does not meet there is no legal continuity between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's possible that the United Kingdom would be renamed the United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but that wouldn't have any legal meaning.

[colliric]

The current constitutional status of Australia has nothing to do with that of the United Kingdom. Legally speaking, Australia and the United Kingdom happen to share the same monarch.

Beyond that, I don't think Scotland's secession would have any legal bearing on the United Kingdom's existence as a state. The secession of the majority of Ireland does not meet there is no legal continuity between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's possible that the United Kingdom would be renamed the United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but that wouldn't have any legal meaning.

The United Kingdom remains a popular general name for the entire region, and it's existence or non-existence as a direct political state is irrelevent, as it has come internationally primarily to mean the entire geographical region along with the "common" regional flag of the Union Jack. One can now interpret it almost entirely to be primarily the various military and political alliances the main countries of the region are involved in. This is actually the reason why it would not affect the Australian constitution at all, even if mentioned in the Constitution, it would be interpreted in the modern context of the UK as a political alliance. If the "political state" as it existed at the time is specficially mentioned, it could be easily interpreted as referring to the current British, and Australian, Monarchy and the current British Government, the Goverment of the UK "at the time of the writing of the Constitution".

In it's own special way it has now taken on the simular modern connotations as the word ANZAC, which pretty much just means the Australian-New Zealand political/Army/economic alliance in it's modern usage. Originally it was only the middle one, the last two letters standing for "Army Corps"(Hence Anzac Day this Thursday).

So to answer the question posed in the thread title, NO.

[Lightman]

The United Kingdom remains a popular general name for the entire region, and it's existence or non-existence as a direct political state is irrelevent, as it has come internationally primarily to mean the entire geographical region along with the "common" regional flag of the Union Jack.

No, it hasn't. The United Kingdom refers to the state that currently governs the island of Great Britain and part of Ulster. To use it to refer to the Republic of Ireland would be shockingly inaccurate.

Also, I was mistaken earlier; there is explicit mention of the United Kingdom in Australia's constitution (unsurprisingly, I know nothing about Australian constitutional law). Nonetheless, I'm still fairly certain that Scotland's secession would have no legal meaning for Australia, and certainly wouldn't by itself bring about a republic.

[colliric]

No, it hasn't. The United Kingdom refers to the state that currently governs the island of Great Britain and part of Ulster. To use it to refer to the Republic of Ireland would be shockingly inaccurate.

I actually agree in terms of localised politics, but the statement still stands, it would no longer be interpreted as the "political state" but in fact the old geographical region that the political state governed. Internationally speaking of cause. Not in the localised politics. The United Kingdom as it existed at the time of the creation of the constitution.

At that time the head government was the British Government, and as such that would interpreted as the "government of the old United Kingdom as it existed at the time of Federation", and so there would be no reason to change anything except the interpretation. Heck the role of the Australian Prime Minister isn't in the constitution, it is theorised as needed in order to forfill the nessecity for a stable united government under the authority of the Governor General(that's why the Dismissal was constitutionally legal!).

It will just be reinterpreted.....