The Queen is not just the titular head of the United Kingdom; she incarnates the Union in its ability to contain difference. When the Supreme Governor of the Church of England crosses the border, she becomes a Presbyterian, an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. She doesn’t surrender her Anglican faith, but she accepts that Scotland’s church and its legal system are different. As further proof of her devotion, every weekday morning at 9am, when she is in residence at Buckingham Palace, Windsor, Holyroodhouse or Balmoral, the Queen has a designated piper play the bagpipes under her window for 15 minutes. With no snooze button. For that sacrifice alone, Her Majesty surely deserves a united kingdom.
Alex Salmond’s blithe assurances that Elizabeth can be Queen of Scots and Queen of RUK are deluded. The monarch can only act on the instruction of her elected ministers; what if two sets of ministers in neighbouring but newly foreign countries want her to do different things? This is not some little wrinkle that can be ironed out after Scotland leaves the UK. It forces the Queen into a bigamous relationship and it requires wholesale constitutional change without the consent of the English, the Welsh and the people of Ulster (remember us?).
The news this week that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their second child was said, by cynics, to be a ploy to rescue the Union. It is both a joke and not a joke. According to a YouGov poll published when Prince George was born last July, the Scots were the people most likely in the UK to buy royal baby memorabilia. Does that sound like a place that wants to be rid of its Queen?
The English tried to force union on the Scots several times in the seventeenth century before using bribery and intimidation to finally arrange things in 1707, mainly because the Scottish parliament had passed an act retaining the right to choose a successor for Queen Anne after the English had gone forward with the Hanoverian succession. So I am not moved much by arguments like this that the referendum, if swinging Yes, will ruin something that is clean and pure.
Isn’t that an assumption that there have been no change in hearts over the last 300+ years?
Scotland and England unified the crowns when James VI became James I of England, well before the Union of the Parliaments. One Sovereign and two Parliaments is not unknown.
Eg., Canada.
I have said already on this site that I believe the Quebec effect will happen, namely that they will draw back at the brink. I would also like to stick my neck out by saying that my guess is that the No margin will be considerably larger than the polls suggest: at least 55-45. My reason for saying this is the unusually large number of ‘Dont-knows’ in the opinion polls: 17%. Nearly all the virulence has been on the Yes side. It has not been pretty. The accusations have been that those who vote No are traitors, not true Scots, timorous, etc. And that’s the polite version. The impolite version would take the paint off the wall. My conclusion is that not surprisingly people who want to vote No will do so and are keeping their heads down in the meantime. Trouble is, all the bile stirred up will leave a fateful legacy even with continuing union. Full disclosure: I write from London.
Terry Tee, opinion polls out today indicate you’re probably right. But the scars of this battle will linger no matter how it goes.