Skip to comments.Queen concerned that United Kingdom will be broken up
Posted on 05/30/2011 12:22:50 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
The Queen has indicated her concern the United Kingdom will be broken up in the wake of Alex Salmonds landslide election victory in Scotland.
The monarch is understood to have expressed her anxiety about the Scottish National Partys plan for an independence referendum during her weekly meeting with David Cameron at Buckingham Palace.
Palace officials have asked Downing Street to provide a constitutional expert to advise on how the referendum will be staged and the dismantling of the UK in the event of a yes vote.
Mr Salmond, the SNP party leader, has previously moved to reassure the Royal Family and sceptical Scots by arguing that the Queen would remain head of state in Scotland following separation.
But a source close to Mr Cameron told a Sunday newspaper the monarchs commitment to the 304-year-old Union between England and Scotland remained strong.
Although she cannot be seen to express a personal opinion, she is said to be concerned at the prospect of Britain being broken up during her reign.
She has always been very clear about the United Kingdom and you just have to look at the way the Royal Family are committed to Scotland to see that, the source said.
As far back as 1977, when the Labour Government was proposing Scottish devolution, she appeared to suggest she was concerned about the ramifications for the Union.
In a remark interpreted as criticism of home rule, she told MPs: I cannot forget I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom.
A senior Buckingham Palace source confirmed the monarch discussed with Mr Cameron the ramifications of this months Scottish Parliament election. Regardless of Her Majestys personal views, it is the job of her private secretary to take these issues seriously and to investigate them, and thats precisely
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If Canada is stupid enough to count itself as part of the empire, the Queen has no need for concern.
The Scots may be concerned about England’s abandonment of its own culture in favor of Islamofascism. If I were a Scot, I wouldn’t want to be part of that, and would want to save my own country and culture.
Scotland is English for Quebec.
If they won’t or can’t defend the Falklands, why worry about Scotland?
I don’t blame the Scots for wanting to separate.
The English and Scots are not the same people.
It is no different than the Irish no longer wanting to be part of the UK either.
I’d even go further and dump the Queen and either re-establish the Scottish monarchy or go republic.
The SNP are a bunch of leftist asshats spouting the usual “free” education, nuclear disarmament, blah, blah, blah. If Scotland follows their lead(SNP) they’ll go down the tube just as fast, if not faster, than England.
Scotland consistently votes further to the left than England does and Labor will likely lose, on balance, more than a million votes if Scotland leaves the UK.
Scotland would be one of the most socialist countries in Europe, rivaling Greece, if it were to become independent.
"The trouble with Scotland is that it's full of Scots."
?? Canada does not consider itself to be part of an ‘empire’ (which does not exist). It IS part of the Commonwealth, but does not give up any sovereignty by that, any more than the US does by being a member of NATO (actually less).
Actually England might want to kick the Scots and Welsh out, remember each then have their own Parliaments and are represented in Westminster, While the English are only represented once at Westminster. There is growing resentment of that inequality in England.
But God Save The Queen anyway :)
>The English and Scots are not the same people.
Southerners can’t relate to the San Fran libtards either.
Legally, her claim to the King of Canada goes through the treaty of Paris in 1762, during the reign of then King George III.
This is older than the creation of the United Kingdom. So say what you will, she is Queen of Canada moreso than Queen of the United Kingdom.
Her claims to the Kingdom of Scotland come through James VI and I. Devolution is either a consequence or a precursor of the unwinding of the Test Act. She is only Queen of Scotland because of the Glorious Revolution. It would actually be Otto of Bavaria who would be the current King of Scotland, should they devolve, and wish to undo the union of the crown (and not become a republic).
Plenty of changes wrought.
Faster. The need handouts from London.
I figured that, but wasn’t sure.
Too bad Queenie. She ought to be more worried about Sharia law in Britain kicking her and her useless eater family out when the Muzzies completely take over.
From the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320:
"But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
As soon as the Scots figure out that the state teat is going to be much smaller without England forking over a bunch they will change their leftist asshat minds.
If they were a bunch of conservatives wanting to get away from England because of England’s liberal policies I’d cheer them on.
That Monarchy crap died a slow death about 100 years ago.
The Queen of England is a classy lady, here offspring will not be so.
As far as Scotland goes, I like their brogue and their ornery attitude. Pass on most of their food. Thank them for Adam Smith and the Scots-Irish who helped the U.S. fight wars.
England sacrificed itself to become the federal capital territory of the UK while the Celts are celebrating their various nationalisms.
Actually, I understand the UK political landscape correctly, Scotland going independent will make the UK MORE conservative.
This might be a very good thing.
The Scots (and the Welsh) are commie left wing nationalists.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain was created on May 1, 1707.
You are probably thinking of the admission of Ireland as a full constituent member of the UK in 1801.
They want to be independent? Fine, but let’s not have any romantic notions about the SNP. Obama would be proud of the SNP’s agenda. Here are a few items from their Manifesto ( http://manifesto.votesnp.com/ ):
“Moving to universal free childccare to match the best in Europe. Speeding up the delivery of a Scottish high-speed rail network. Becoming Europe’s green energy powerhouse. Delivering a carbon-neutral Scotland. Contributing to international peace-keeping and peace-building not illegal wars. Freeing Scotland from nuclear weapons.”
“We have passed the industrialized world’s most ambitious Climate Change legislation and are working hard to deliver a 42% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
“We know Scotland can be a voice for peace and justice in the world. Instead of wars and nuclear weapons, we believe Scotland’s contribution to the world should be based on peace, fair trade, sustainability and social justice.”
“...Ensure a more rapid expansion of electric vehicles on Scotland’s roads.”
“...We have guaranteed that the revenue budget of the Scottish NHS will be protected in real terms. That means that in four years’ time the budget of the NHS will be more than 1 billion Pounds higher than it is today. No privatisation of the Scottish NHS.”
“Firearms: Propose the creation of a new Ballistics ‘DNA’ Database so each and every firerm in Sccotland can be tracked. All new guns would be test-fired before being sold to record the unique marks or scratches the gun leaves on the bullet when it fires.”
“The SNP believes Scottish Higher Education should be free.
Yes, in it’s current form, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The 1707 Act of Union formed Great Britain.
“The Queen of England is a classy lady, here offspring will not be so.”
As compared to Obama?
It is Obama’s fault. If he had stayed home the Queen would have had no worries.
The 1707 Act of Union formed Great Britain.
Its current form (from 1921) is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
But it's more complicated than that. Wales was a colony of England from about 1282 until 1535 when it was annexed and became part of England proper. It was part of England proper until it was separated in 1955.
The crowns were united in 1603 when Elizabeth I died and James VI of Scotland became James I of England. The Union Jack was created to symbolize the united crowns in 1606.
For a short time under Oliver Cromwell England and Scotland were united under a single government, but they were then separated again until the Act of Union in 1707.
The U.K. is not able to afford it’s own defense from any real military threat; it’s really relying on the U.S. to backstop them militarily.
If Scotland completely breaks away from the U.K., their national defense will be a complete joke.
In much of the Commonwealth there is so much focus on the politics of getting out of the U.K., they fall on their face in most every real issue. I mean, if China wanted to come kick Canada’s a$$ and enslave the Canadians to grow wheat for them, and if the U.S. did absolutely nothing about it, it would take all of about a month to happen. The rest of the Commonwealth would be encapable of helping them.
Yeash, but Obama will be gone in either two years, or six years. But he WILL be gone eventually.
Whale poop on the bottom of the ocean is higher than Obozo.
FUBO! And your Commie Minions.
When the British Labor Party realizes how many 'guaranteed' Scottish Labor seats they would lose in Westminster, they will suddenly be in favor of retaining the Union. It is all about retaining power.
Charles is 62.
He’s only 2 and a half years shy of the record. That might be an interesting wager. Who lasts longer, Charles or Obama.
Yep, and they’ll have to stop sucking at the British taxpayers teat as well.
|In much of the Commonwealth there is so much focus on the politics of getting out of the U.K., they fall on their face in most every real issue. I mean, if China wanted to come kick Canadas a$$ and enslave the Canadians to grow wheat for them, and if the U.S. did absolutely nothing about it, it would take all of about a month to happen. The rest of the Commonwealth would be encapable of helping them.”
How would they reach Canada? How are they going to supply their jets?
They could fit maybe 5k men on one transport that was capable of sailing around the world. That, plus the supplies.
Say they land with 5000 men in Vancouver, they wouldn’t be able to do it unannounced, not sailing past Esquimault.
How long would it take to disembark? Where would they land the boat? Coal Harbour?
Esquimalt alone has 6 frigates and 1 destroyer. The PRC has by my count 6 boats in the same class of Canada. So if they were willing to sacrifice all of their best boats, and were willing and able to sail them all the way to Vancouver, they could land.
I don’t think it’s possible, given the Canadian naval and air resources. There would be more people on the freeway at the time than the people they could land.
Or maybe they could become the fifth maritime province of Canada, which already has a Nova Scotia--they could call themselves Vetus Scotia.
That’s true. My understanding is that a lot of the state support in the UK goes to Scotland. I’m not arguing with you over that.
I’m just saying, as someone that feels his ancestry very keenly, that I really believe Scotland would be better off to be out of the UK.
The Queen is the Scottish monarch. Ever since the Union of he Crowns in 1603, the Monarch has been no less and no more King or Queen of Scotland than King or Queen of England. It would be perfectly possible for an independent Scotland to retain the Queen as Head of State (as has, of course, happened with several other countries).
“Im just saying, as someone that feels his ancestry very keenly, that I really believe Scotland would be better off to be out of the UK.”
Only if they became a conservative country. Otherwise they will simply trod down the same worn out socialist path as England. What’s the point?
Pride of country?
b—we can, any Argie attack now would never get off the beach.
Not all of us.
If Vortigern had not invited the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes to Britain, England and the English language would never have existed in the first place.
And thank G-d for that!