THIS is absolutely not the time to make political points and I have no intention of doing so, but there does need to be some examination from a historical viewpoint of the passing of Queen Elizabeth, and the ascension to the throne of her son King Charles III.

I was asked by a reader if I could put these events into a historical context, possibly from the Scottish point of view, and after much thought I will try do so, concentrating on facts.

My main conclusion is that Scotland will go its own way and the Scots will do their own thing in the future, but we should look back on Queen Elizabeth’s long reign with considerably more forensic attention to context and detail than has been extant in the last few days before coming to a conclusion about her – the Queen has been dead only a few days and it’s too soon to reach a true judgement on her reign in history terms.

Have the past few days, however, been of historical significance? Absolutely.

It seemed glib for politicians and pundits alike to claim that this is a moment of history but really there can be no other conclusion. We are living through days which will be remembered for decades and the easiest test of that is to ask yourself the “JFK question”, namely will you remember for the rest of your life where you were when you heard the news that the Queen had died?

READ MORE: King Charles delivers first speech after death of Queen Elizabeth

I certainly will – in a hotel in Venice as it happened, and having heard that the royal family had been summoned to Balmoral, I knew the worst was either happening or about to happen, so that we were watching the BBC World News when the announcement was made.

It was not a surprise, obviously, but still came as a shock, and the subsequent reaction of the public and the media around the world shows that the Queen’s death is a hugely historic happening. She was just two years short of being the longest-reigning monarch of a sovereign country in world history, and I am pretty certain Louis XIV of France, who reigned from 1643 until 1715, will always hold on to that record – and don’t forget he was only four when he gained the throne.

As the longest reigning monarch in British history, Queen Elizabeth was a history maker for that fact alone. She was head of state for seven decades of huge change in Scotland, the UK, and the world in general.

As far as I know she was not a great literary person, but imagine what written insights she could give into matters such as the Suez Crisis, the Wilson-Heath years, the Thatcher era and the years since Tony Blair came to power. It is a pity that we will never know her real thoughts on all her 15 Prime Ministers, and what were her real feelings about, say, the Scottish devolution referendum that took place 25 years ago this week?

Her reign started with a Scottish controversy, namely her use of Elizabeth II when Scotland had never had a Queen Elizabeth I. I researched this issue some time ago and I am sticking to my conclusion that she could have called herself by any name she liked and the numeral followed automatically, and the proof of that is King Charles III himself – as his mother had, Charles had the Royal Prerogative to call himself by any name, and don’t forget that his uncle Bertie rejected his own name for his brief reign as Edward VIII.

There will be no controversy over the name of Charles III in Scotland as he will indeed be the third king of that name to reign over Scotland, with Charles II being the last king to be crowned in Scotland.

His son Prince William now has his Earldom of Strathearn upgraded to the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Scottish title always given to the heir apparent to the British throne, as it was for the heir apparent to the Scottish throne from around 1398 when it was created by King Robert III for his son David.

It’s not been too widely reported but he will now also hold other Scottish titles as Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. Meanwhile his brother Harry will continue as Earl of Dumbarton though he still hasn’t visited the town.

When William succeeds his father we will encounter the same problem as his grandmother, because he will be only the fourth king of Scotland of that name – William III should more correctly be known as William II of Scotland – while it will be automatic in England that he will be known as William V.

Do these things matter, especially at this time? Well yes they do, because it is a denial of Scottish history and there’s enough of that going on.

The plain fact is that had it not been for her ancestor James VI and I coming down from Scotland to succeed Elizabeth I then there is no telling where the dynastic settlement might have gone and Charles Windsor might never have even been close to the throne.

As it is we have seen his mother Elizabeth have a glorious and indeed historic reign, but at the age of 73, Charles III will have nowhere near the time his predecessor had.

READ MORE: Stirling festival cancelled as 'mark of respect' following Queen's death

What did the Queen do for Scotland? Some will point to her remarks in the days before the 2014 referendum but frankly I think they had little or no effect on the outcome.

She loved this country, of that I have no doubt, and I do think she chose to come to Balmoral to die in a place where she was almost always at her happiest.

What the future holds for her son we cannot know at this time, and in a time of huge upheaval in Britain as a whole, he will need far-seeing political nous to keep the monarchy going.

What happens next to Charles III and his family will really and truly be the stuff of history.