Nigel Farage thinks so, and with the independence referendum vote still poised on a knife-edge, I can see his point.
Yes, it's important that the monarchy remains above politics, but the question which I think needs to be answered is whether that principle of constitutional impartiality is actually more important than the survival of the country itself?
I would argue not. Even if it were to ultimately cost her the throne, then surely that would be a price worth paying to maintain the integrity of the country she has reigned over for 62 years?
After all, it's not as if she has never made her views know on this issue before. As we have been reminded this week, she made an avowedly pro-Union speech during the 1977 Silver Jubilee celebrations when she said: "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
In my view, the line from the Palace this week should have been: "In response to suggestions that the Queen should intervene in the current debate over Scottish independence, Her Majesty made her views clear in her speech to both Houses of Parliament during the 1977 Silver Jubilee. She does not intend to add to them."
This would have made clear beyond any doubt where she stands on the matter without getting actively involved in the referendum campaign.
1 comment:
The Queen also swore in her Coronation Oath to be Queen of the Union of South Africa as well as Pakistan and Ceylon, none of which she still is. I cannot find any reference to the Queen interfering in the 1960 South African republic referendum even though the electorate was restricted to just white voters. If the oath was so important to the Queen that she had to abandon her political neutrality then she should have done something about apartheid South Africa rather than Scottish self-determination?
If the Queen really does interfere against the right of the Scottish people for independence then she shouldn't be Queen of anywhere because she doesn't respect her own subjects.
Post a Comment