Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy

[Dman]

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 30m
Buckingham Palace on Scottish independence: Her Majesty is firmly of the view that this is a matter for the people of Scotland.

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 1h
Buck Palace: any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 24m
Buck Pal: "The Sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy.

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 23m
Buck Palace: as such the Monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case.

 

[Ish]

He will say ANYTHING to get the division he wants.

The Queens views on the Union were expressed some years ago in a speech to the assembled Houses of Parliament. She is far too wise to reiterate them now, but her views are a matter of public record.

The Queen's views on this issue have not been made public and will not be made public.

The Queen is an apolitical person and does not publicly voice her opinions. The words she speaks in Parliament are written by her government - she is speaking on tier behalf, not hers.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

He will say ANYTHING to get the division he wants.

The Queens views on the Union were expressed some years ago in a speech to the assembled Houses of Parliament. She is far too wise to reiterate them now, but her views are a matter of public record.

I fail to see what Mr Salmond said to upset you? Nothing other than that "the Scots would be proud to have Her Majesty as Queen of Scots, as her ancestors were" and (probably to the discontent of republican Scots): "I think Her Majesty the Queen, who has seen so many events in the course of her long reign, will be proud to be Queen of Scots as indeed we indeed have been proud to have her as our monarch.”

Of course he is fighting for his cause but the Queen is treated with supersoft velvet gloves here.

 

[cepe]

The Palace has stepped in following Mr Salmonds comments.

All political parties and the media are seeing his words as involving the Queen in the debate.

From The Telegraph

The Palace intervened to protect the Queen’s neutrality after Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, risked controversy by suggesting that the Queen would be proud to reign over an independent Scotland

Hours after Mr Salmond’s comments, Buckingham Palace issued a stern statement saying that the Queen was above politics and “those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case”.

A spokesman said: "The Sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign.

"As such the Monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case.

"Any suggestion that the Queen should wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. This is a matter for the people of Scotland."


In UK Royal speak, this is a stern slapdown for Mr Salmond. I appreciate that those of you from o/side the Uk may not see it that way, but it is. The response was swift and to the point. Involving her will not help him - he's doing ok without that. Foolish thing to do.

 

[wyevale]

Duc et Pair,

As a British subject inevitably i'm emotionally involved with the putative [impending] dissolution of my native country.

As a Frenchman I understand you may be delighted at the prospect [since our nations are hereditary enemies], just as i would be if Brittany sought to secede from France !

 

[Jacknch]

It is interesting that the announcement from Buckingham Palace following Mr Salmond's comments didn't come a few days earlier when there was speculation in the media that the Queen WAS concerned about the possibility of Scotland going independent. Maybe it's just the timing and coincidental, maybe it is a slap down for Salmond. Either way, I cannot imagine that the Queen is enthused about it all.

I would personally be horrified if an independent Scotland ever decided to become a republic - but if it did I would hope the Scottish parliament voted Salmond out and had someone else as president!!

My hope is that whatever the result of the referendum is, it is a proper majority result one way or the other. I also hope that the people of Scotland fully understand the pros and cons of independence/remaining in the Union in terms of economics and financial stability and are not just going to vote on the basis of national pride.
My partner often tries to explain national and international financial and economical issues to me and even he is struggling to work out whether independence would be a good thing or bad thing for Scotland.
In this day and age, when it comes to independence of a country, economics need to be at the top of the list to consider.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

If Scotland succeeds in seceding, the Union Jack will most likely change. IIRC, the white cross would need to be removed. Or, do you all think the flag will remain as is?

 

[cepe]

I was talking to a Scottish business man today - own business and loves Scotland as does his wife and 3 children. I was shocked when he said that if the Yes vote wins, he's leaving. And economics is the reason.

Too few businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for the promises. He needs to secure the future for his children. So he's coming to England. He is also a monarchist and says that the SNP are republicans - another reason to leave.

 

[wyevale]

My hope is that whatever the result of the referendum is, it is a proper majority result one way or the other.

I agree, the worst conceivable result is a very narrow majority either way... that would fuel resentment and be terrible for everybody !

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I was talking to a Scottish business man today - own business and loves Scotland as does his wife and 3 children. I was shocked when he said that if the Yes vote wins, he's leaving. And economics is the reason.



Too few businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for the promises. He needs to secure the future for his children. So he's coming to England. He is also a monarchist and says that the SNP are republicans - another reason to leave.

I have a British Royal Page on Facebook. I ask the Scottish members in a poll of they wanted Independence and Ten voted NO. Not one vote for yes and quite a few of them said they would move to England it Happens. Some Scottish people have family in England and one lady on there said that families are being pitted against each other. And also said that she is British First then Scottish. She also refuse to live in what effectively would be a Foreign Country when her Kids live in England.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Al_bina]

I am not too surprised to read loud Soviet-style lamentation about the possibility of Scotland leaving the Union.

 

[Alison H]

As far as royalty goes, Ireland (and Wales) came under the English crown by conquest. It's a completely different historical situation with Scotland - there was a personal union of the crowns 104 years before there was a political Act of Union. I can see that it would be weird for an independent Scotland to have a monarch who was based in London, but this is a different situation to that with Ireland or any of the former colonies.

The Daily Mail is talking rubbish! William and Kate are officially known as the Earl and Countess of Strathearn in Scotland, so why wouldn't Alex Salmond refer to them as such, referendum or no referendum?

Sky News were going through the polls earlier, and every single poll had a different result. One had 7% of people undecided and one had 23% of people undecided!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Palace has stepped in following Mr Salmonds comments.

All political parties and the media are seeing his words as involving the Queen in the debate.

From The Telegraph

The Palace intervened to protect the Queen’s neutrality after Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, risked controversy by suggesting that the Queen would be proud to reign over an independent Scotland

Hours after Mr Salmond’s comments, Buckingham Palace issued a stern statement saying that the Queen was above politics and “those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case”.

A spokesman said: "The Sovereign's constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign.

"As such the Monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure that this remains the case.

"Any suggestion that the Queen should wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. This is a matter for the people of Scotland."


In UK Royal speak, this is a stern slapdown for Mr Salmond. I appreciate that those of you from o/side the Uk may not see it that way, but it is. The response was swift and to the point. Involving her will not help him - he's doing ok without that. Foolish thing to do.

It is interesting that Senior MPs from all parties have said that the Prime Minister should consider asking the Queen to speak out against breaking up the union. The Telegraph 'forgot' to mention this but nevertheless framed Salmond's words as dragging the Queen into the debate... Other media, even the staunch pro-Union Daily Mail have mentioned this, so The Telegraph is selective with portraying the whole story.

Read more: Alex Salmond dismisses claims The Queen is 'concerned' at surge in support for independence | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Queen has nothing to gain to speak out. In the "worst" outcome for "Westminster" she will have an extra throne anyway. Not a too hard to bear prospect, if you ask me. The Queen is wise to remain on the sideline. Every outcome is okay, she will remain Queen whatever, from both countries, united or not.

 

[Jacknch]

Sky News were going through the polls earlier, and every single poll had a different result. One had 7% of people undecided and one had 23% of people undecided!

I think this is a problem with polls generally. Whenever there is a general election, we have numerous polls about who will win. Yet, after the result I have never once gone back to see if the result was as predicted by the polls!

I think there will be many people who will make a last minute decision when the vote actually comes and some may well change their minds at the last minute.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Duc et Pair,

As a British subject inevitably i'm emotionally involved with the putative [impending] dissolution of my native country.

As a Frenchman I understand you may be delighted at the prospect [since our nations are hereditary enemies], just as i would be if Brittany sought to secede from France !

I absolutely understand your emotion. However the Referendum was agreed and backed by all three main parties in Westminster, to begin with. When the Scots decide to break away from the Union, then apparently "Westminster" has completely miscalculated and underestimated a strong sentiment in Scottish society. When the Scots love and feel a strong attachment to the Union they belong to since 308 years, then they will vote for it. When they do not, are we to blame the Scots or Mr Salmond for the choice they made? It was Cameron and no one else who gave them the legal and democratic instrument of a Referendum. Without any doubt Cameron thought: "I can do that, of course the Union will win, any other outcome is utter fantasy." Now all this is coming close to a severe miscalculation from "Westminster". I don't think anyone can blame Salmond or nationalists for fighting their cause. Apparently they did it with more zest, conviction, motivation and willpower than the Unionists. In the end I think the NO-camp will win, with a narrow margin. Then "Westminster" will negotiate the hand-over of promised new powers. Most likely in a few years time the Scots will feel dissatisfied and again urge for a Referendum. All by all maybe it is better -in royalist eyes- to have two thrones indeed and no more unrest and Referendums.

 

[wyevale]

Personally I blame Mr Blair in this matter [as in so many !] When he reconstituted a Scottish Parliament we were assured that it would kill Nationalism 'stone dead', whereas in reality it has given Mr Salmond an ideal platform to spread his separatist agenda. This is the result...

IF the Scots do vote to go Mr Blair may well have ensured there in NEVER a Labour goverment in England again [Since majority of English seats invariably return Conservative MPs], with the Scots [and a smaller number of Northern English voters] voting Labour !

 

[Nice Nofret]

.... All by all maybe it is better -in royalist eyes- to have two thrones indeed and no more unrest and Referendums.

This view is zynic and has no foundation in reality. The Queen vowed to serve HER people - not to serve herself. And that is what she did and still does.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen's views on this issue have not been made public and will not be made public.

The Queen is an apolitical person and does not publicly voice her opinions. The words she speaks in Parliament are written by her government - she is speaking on tier behalf, not hers.

Her views on this subject were made public in 1977 in her Jubilee speech when she referred to having been crowned as The Queen of the United Kingdom etc and how much they had achieved together.

She doesn't need to reiterate those views now.

 

[wyevale]

I agree Iluvbertie,and posted accordingly but Ish wasn't having it . That speech was her own work, and expressed perfectly her feelings on the union.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

This view is zynic and has no foundation in reality. The Queen vowed to serve HER people - not to serve herself. And that is what she did and still does.

Explain please. The Queen of Canada and the Queen of Australia is not serving her people, or am I missing something here? So why would the Queen of Scots not serve her people likewise?

 

[crm2317]

A colleague today raised the point that everyone in the UK should have a vote on this matter as it effects the whole country, not just Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[wyevale]

George has spoken...

 

[Ish]

Her views on this subject were made public in 1977 in her Jubilee speech when she referred to having been crowned as The Queen of the United Kingdom etc and how much they had achieved together.

She doesn't need to reiterate those views now.

I stand corrected. I was unaware that she had made such a speech and was misreading what wyevale had said.

I agree Iluvbertie,and posted accordingly but Ish wasn't having it . That speech was her own work, and expressed perfectly her feelings on the union.

Is that really necessary?

You said that she'd made a speech in favour of the union some time ago in front of the Houses of Parliaments. I assumed, clearly wrongly, that you meant that she had made such a speech at the opening of Parliament, when the government writes her speech for her. Bertie very nicely corrected me, that the speech was in fact in the Jubilee celebrations, and her own words.

I wasn't not having what you said, I was misunderstanding what you'd said because you weren't really clear. There are many people on these forums who seem to operate under the impression of "well the Queen said this at the opening of Parliament so that must be her opinion" and your comments lead me to believe that that's what you were doing - strengthened in part because of all the articles lately about how upset the Queen is about the possibility of Scottish independence that have no sources.

I apologize for my assumptions.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

BBC News - Scottish independence: Queen 'won't interfere in Scots poll'

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

I think I saw in a documentary once that the then Prime Minister was a bit put out by the political nature of the Queen's words during the Silver Jubilee speech at Westminster Hall. He couldn't do anything about it as it turned out a copy had been sent to him beforehand, but neither he, nor any of his staff, read it.

 

[PetticoatLane]

^Fully agree; the real issue seems to be that London is making all the choices, to the benefit of London and England, not Scotland.

Where did you pick up this little piece of nonsense? The nationalists' propaganda?

I'm from NI, so I suppose I'm one of those people who suffers from London just taking care of England at the expense of the rest of us? Except, I'm not. All the figures show Scotland (and NI and Wales too) receive more per head in government spending than England does. We each have our own regional parliaments, whereas England does not. English MPs cannot vote on Scottish, NI or Welsh education or health policies for example, yet Scots, NI and Welsh MPs CAN do for English policy.

The Scots are doing and have done very, very well out of the Union.

 

[PetticoatLane]

I was talking to a Scottish business man today - own business and loves Scotland as does his wife and 3 children. I was shocked when he said that if the Yes vote wins, he's leaving. And economics is the reason.

Too few businesses and entrepreneurs to pay for the promises. He needs to secure the future for his children. So he's coming to England. He is also a monarchist and says that the SNP are republicans - another reason to leave.

Interesting, cepe.

I was speaking yesterday at work with an 82-year-old Scottish lady and the discussion came round to the referendum. She's incredibly worried what a 'yes' vote means for her pension. She's terrified as she doesn't know what currency it's going to be in, if its value will stay the same or whether it's guaranteed into the future without the strength of the Bank of England standing behind everything. I really felt for her.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

A colleague today raised the point that everyone in the UK should have a vote on this matter as it effects the whole country, not just Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

That is not possible because then the Scots, who have to make a decision on Scotland's future are then totally outnumbered by the rest of the Union. It is the same as allowing Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia to decide on a future outside the Soviet Union but then only when the whole USSR can vote too...

 

[Iluvbertie]

This decision though doesn't only affect Scotland but the entire union is going to be affected.

The sad thing is the way Scotland is being torn apart.

I have friends with family over there who are planning on leaving regardless of the vote due to the way their community is no longer a community. They have been vilified by former friends over their views and have been uninvited to two weddings in the past two weeks because of their opinions.

 

[Jacknch]

That is not possible because then the Scots, who have to make a decision on Scotland's future are then totally outnumbered by the rest of the Union. It is the same as allowing Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia to decide on a future outside the Soviet Union but then only when the whole USSR can vote too...

Unless, of-course, the majority of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish were happy for Scotland to be out of the union anyway!