Scottish independence: The Queen is urged to intervene
Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 02:30 PM - Edit history (2)
Source: The Telegraph
David Cameron is under growing pressure to ask the Queen to speak out in support of the Union as another opinion poll confirms a surge in support for Scottish independence.
Senior MPs have suggested an intervention from Her Majesty could make all the difference as a TNS poll shows the Yes and No campaigns running neck and neck.
The pound crashed to a 10-month low on Monday and £2.3?billion was wiped off the value of the six FTSE-100 companies based in Scotland on the first day of trading since a weekend poll put the Yes campaign ahead for the first time. ...
Amid growing panic in Westminster, Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, promised to give Scotland a Home Rule Bill within six weeks if the country votes to stay in the United Kingdom.
Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11083204/Scottish-independence-The-Queen-is-urged-to-intervene.html
The news here is that the 'Torygraph", the Conservative's newspaper, is advocating a Hail Mary pass, without precedent or any expectation that the Queen would break protocol. David Cameron of Eton is unlikely to 'urge' anything on Queen Elizabeth II, who, is also the Queen of Scotland in her own right. The Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen of Scotland and the Duke of Rothesay, all in tartan, looked very concerned yesterday.
/
UPDATE: Official confirmation that Queen will not intervene in the Scottish independence debate (doh) "Her Majesty is simply of the view this is a matter for the people of Scotland", which should have been obvious to the Telegraph in the first place.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Clever.
Pedant
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)First off, the "Hail Mary pass" is an American football phrase.
However, in connection with Scotland and British royals, the phrase "Hail Mary" brings to mind an entirely different set of historical circumstances.
And, finally, my pedant was eaten by my pedaardvark.
denem
(11,045 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)
Yes you have two Queen Marys at the same time, both seems to have been named after Henry VIII's sister, Queen Mary of France (only queen of France for a short time period, the King Died and she returned to England to oppose Henry's divorce of his first First Wife and became disinherited for that opposition).
Mary of Scotland: Queen of Scotland: 1542-1567
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots
Mary I of England: Queen of England 1553-1558
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England
Queen Mary of France: 1514-1515.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Tudor,_Queen_of_France
Mary I of England is often called "Bloody Mary" for she adopted a policy of punishing Protestants while she was Queen. She did order several protestants killed, mostly tied in with the unsuccessful plot to put Lady Jane Grey as Queen instead of Mary (Mary did NOT order Lady Jane Grey killed for the FIRST PLOT to overthrow Queen Mary, Mary saw Lady jane Grey had been only a pawn by others, but after the second attempt she had to go for as a Protestant the option of the Convent was NOT possible).
Mary was popular with the people, when her Sister Elizabeth became Queen, Elizabeth declared Mary's birthday a religious Holiday, a Religious Holiday observed by the Anglican Church till the early 1700s. Mary reputations as "Blood Mary" is a post Cromwell move, through she did execute 284 people, all high ranking officials in England (Her Catholic Advisers actually advised against such executions, but Mary overruled them). Thw 284 sounds like a lot, but it is a small number compared to who her Father (Henry VIII) killed and appears to be more to secure her place on the throne then an anti-protestant policy (She prefer to exile protestants and confiscate they lands).
Mary seems to have been popular outside of London, which at that time period was already the largest city in England, but most people lived OUTSIDE any urban areas in England at that time period. Thus Mary died in power without any real opposition to her rule, thus Elizabeth as Mary's only heir could move right into power.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)of Mary Queen of Scots - and regent from 1554-1560.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Guise
John Knox's infamous "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women" was a diatribe that women, exemplified by Mary I of England, Mayr of Guise, and Mary Queen of Scots, should never be allowed to rule.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I do NOT think it has anything to do with religion per se, but that even in the "Dark Ages" women had OPTIONS under Catholicism to reject a force marriage (i.e. join a convent and if rich take her money with her). The leaders of the Protestants tend to come from the then raising upper middle class and hated this option, they wanted to control the money and thus that option stood in their way.
Mary Tutor, Queen of France, and sister to Henry VIII, committed treason when she married against her brother's orders but got off with paying a huge fine. Her Sister, Queen Margaret of Scotland, was almost as bad, she ruled Scotland after the death of her husband while her son was an infant (her son was crowned King of Scotland at age 17 months, later would marry and Mary of Scotland is his daughter).
Please note, another Mary, was Queen of Scotland when Mary Tutor's son Charles V of Scotland died and left Mary of Scotland Queen of Scotland at the age of six days of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Guise
As to Knox's paper here is the actual text:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
Knox not only quotes the Bible, but also Aristole:
He then turns to Roman Law citing the Digest of Justinian and De regulis juris.
He then go into the Old Testament, but ignores Deborah (Except at the end see below) a "judge" of Israel during the time of "Judges" which predates the founding of the Kingdom of Israel.
He then sites St Paul's statement not to leave women speak in church, while ignoring St Paul letter telling another church to listen to a female follower as if he was speaking (St Paul's letter as to women NOT speaking in church was to prevent women breaking up the mass and asking what was happening for they wanted to know. it was a reflection of the Greek Tradition of teaching men and women separately thus the women did not know what was happening because they had never been told and spoke up in mass to ask why. St Paul's letter is NOT to shut these women up, but that the mass should NOT be interrupted by such question, those questions should be answered AFTER the mass, i.e. it was a comment that the Speaking by women was at the WRONG time and place NOT that woman should NOT speak).
A Protestant minister once made the comment that if St Paul knew how his letters would be later used, he would have been more careful what he wrote. Thus in one letter he said "Women are not to speak during mass" and in another said, listen to this woman when she speaks during mass. St Paul saw no conflict in those two positions for they addressed two different problems, but Knox in his attack on women rulers is using St Paul for his purposes and ignoring what St Paul wrote that undermine that position.
Knox then turns to Tertullian 160-220 AD, an early Christian philosopher who later embraced what the later church called heresy to attack women (one of the reason Tertullian was rejected by the Catholic Church was his attack on Women).
He then turns to St Augustine who like most people of his time period reflected Roman and Greek law that said women should "obey" their husbands. He goes on and on ignoring statements of good women rulers and citing cases of bad woman rulers. It is an attack on women in general.
As you get to the end, Knox finally mentions Deborah. Knox goes on and on about Deborah and that she did NOT speak as a RULER but as a person acting as an agent of God. i.e. she was NOT doing what she did on her own, but only as an agent of God and then only to pass God's messages to those people who needed to know what God wanted. Knox makes out that Deborah was submissive to the men around her, but she is listed as married and her husband other then being named is NOT mentioned in the Book of Deborah. As to the person she named to command the Army, he is listed and she tells him what he has to do, but Knox says she tells him but does NOT order him. If your boss says "Will you please do X" is that a request you can ignore or an order you must obey? Knox says it was a request not an Order, you make your own judgment (I would take it as an Order, but I accept women can order me about when they are in charge).
Such as have more pleasure in light than in darkness may clearly perceive that Deborah did usurp no such power nor authority as our queens do this day claim; but that she was endued with the spirit of wisdom, of knowledge, and of the true fear of God, and by the same she judged the facts of the rest of the people. She rebuked their defection and idolatry, yea, and also did redress to her power their injuries that were done by man to man. But all this, I say, she did by the spiritual sword, that is, by the word of God, and not by any temporal regiment or authority which she did usurp over Israel: in which, I suppose, at that time there was no lawful magistrate, by the reason of their great affliction. For so witnesses the history, saying, "And Ehud being dead, the Lord sold Israel into the hand of Jabin, king of Canaan;" and he by Siserah his captain afflicted Israel greatly the space of twenty years. And Deborah herself, in her song of thanksgiving, confesses that before she did arise mother in Israel, and in the days of Jael, there was nothing but confusion and trouble.
If any stick to the term, alleging that the Holy Ghost says "that she judged Israel," let them understand that neither does the Hebrew word, neither yet the Latin, always signify civil judgment, or the execution of the temporal sword; but most commonly [it] is taken in the sense which we have before expressed. For of Christ it is said, "He shall judge many nations," and that, "He shall pronounce judgment to the Gentiles" (Isa. 2:4; 42:1; Micah 4:2-3) and yet it is evident that he was no minister of the temporal sword. God commanded Jerusalem and Judah to judge betwixt him and his vineyard (Isa. 5:3), and yet he appointed not them all to be civil magistrates.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Her and her family are nothing more than a overpaid tourist attractions.
denem
(11,045 posts)and a Dalek.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and Daleks are Welsh, aren't they?
Warpy
(111,318 posts)since she's part of the Hanoverian line instead of the Scot Stuart line.
Yeah, some Scots do still resent that one.
Uncle Joe
(58,389 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I have a genealogy book for my mother's father's family and it goes all the way back to the Stuarts in Scotland.
The Hanovers changed their name to Windsor. The Battenbergs changed their name to Mountbatten, as in Prince Philip Mountbatten, the Queen's husband. They're all German through Albert and Victoria.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that economically it may not be the way to go. I do like the idea of home rule.
OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)Windsors were from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Victoria was the last Hanover, but Edward VII and George V were S-C and G because of the father of Edward (Prince Albert). It was changed to Windsor during WWI.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)and is half mixed English and Scottish heritage from her mother's side.
She is also a bit Danish, since her great-grandfather Edward VIII (?) married a Danish princess back in the 19th century.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)I'm done!
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)what HRM says? Maybe it would make more of them vote Yes. I say go for it. (just to stick it to the Empire)
P.S. re: the photo - Funny how wearing a skirt (a/k/a kilt) makes the men keep the knees together. Guys should wear them in NYC then they wouldn't be taking up two seats on the subway.
sarge43
(28,942 posts)She certainly isn't going waste her political capital covering his hindquarters. Prime Ministers and governments come and go. Further, she does not publicly get involved in politics. If Scotland goes republic, she'd be disappointed mainly for sentimental reasons -- mom was a Scot and the Scottish monarchy is much older than the English. However, she'll take the long view and press on.
I think that article was a trial balloon to test public reaction. Unless Cameron is dumber than a solicitor's wig, he knows HM won't publicly say a mumbling word, but she may have something to say at the next weekly meet up about trying to drag her into this mess.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The crowns merged with James I, so they would not have a separate heir.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Although republican sentiment is stronger in Scotland than England, there's still enough monarchists that any question of losing the queen would have guaranteed the rejection of independence. Salmond was quick to put out a congratulatory message yesterday when the new pregnancy was announced - using the Scottish titles of William and Kate, rather than their English "Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". They'd be in the same position as Canada, etc.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though at one time there was a separate Scottish monarchy. So it's not quite like Canada, which never had its own monarch.
In her titles she's Queen of Scotland too.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-r-12/latest/rsc-1985-c-r-12.html
It's always "the United Kingdom" (in full, "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" :
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/39873/supplement/3023
But yes, I expect it will be 'Queen of Scotland' if the referendum passes.
denem
(11,045 posts)Is she the Queen of Australia? http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/australia/australia.aspx
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Queen of Australia, etc.
denem
(11,045 posts)there will have to be new instruments enacted before she becomes Queen of Anything, in the former UK: England, Scotland or Northern Ireland?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)It will bring government and legislation to a grinding halt, in Westminster and Scotland, for a couple of years if it happens. Plus a lot in Brussels too, whatever gets negotiated.
denem
(11,045 posts)when the UK has also ceased to exist?
denem
(11,045 posts)and likewise, northern Italy. Is Czechoslovakia a useful precedent?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)and the 2 parts were roughly equal size, so not much of a precedent.
Everyone is pretty sure that the rest of the UK ('rUK' as is now being said) will be designated as a successor state to the UK and so will automatically have all the attributes in the EU of the UK (not in the Euro or Schengen agreement, for instance). What isn't sure is whether Scotland will also be treated as a successor state or not. The SNP would like to be - they'd rather have open borders with England, the way Northern Ireland does with Ireland, and they say that a currency union with rUK is the best thing for both Scotland and rUK. But countries joining the EU are meant to be working towards adopting the Euro (and Schengen too, I think), and it's now said that any member not in the Euro must have its own currency and a central bank for it. And the implication is that Spain and Italy would want to make it as hard as possible for Scotland, to discourage their own separatist areas from trying to follow Scotland.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)as its currency in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar, for example.
That would give me pause, if I were voting in Scotland.
I'm of English, Irish, Scottish and Swedish extraction and a US citizen from birth. My Scottish family came from the Inverness area.
derby378
(30,252 posts)Based upon their history of interacting with other European nations during their independence.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)according to some sources I've read. Scotland will not be able to piggy-back on the UK's EU membership.
Before they join the EU, they will have to establish a central bank that can manage financial affairs, and that means their own currency, as far as I can tell.
It may be a really rough go for the first years of Scottish independence. They really will have to create a modern state almost from scratch and do it outside a major trading bloc.
If Scotland decides to go its own way, I wish them well, though.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Scotland had its own monarchy at one time, then due to intermarriage they ended up with the same person inheriting both. Whereas Canada and Australia are just add ons.
Funny if we had waited to separate in the manner they did, she'd be the Queen here too.
pampango
(24,692 posts)weeks if the country votes to stay in the United Kingdom."
If 'home rule' is such a good idea, why isn't a bill being proposed now. It's not like this referendum, or the issues behind it, sprang up out of the blue.
sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)Scotland already had a lot of home rule power thru the devolved parliament, much like Northern Ireland.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)He wouldn't let them put Devolution Max, aka Home Rule, on the referendum in the first place. Now, he sees his career, and his party, circling the drain and is flailing.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)Why on earth would any nationalist give a tinkers damn about what that queen has to say? I
snooper2
(30,151 posts)he was telling a story about being a a small U2 concert and in the middle Bono came out and the lights were off. He started clapping and the lights slowly came on. Big slow claps with his arms out in front-
He said Bono then started explaining how every time he claps a child dies in Africa and a guy standing right by him yelled out with his Scottish accent "Well stop clapping already!" (and he said the guy was being serious)
Then he went on to say what fucking wankers the Scottish are LOL
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)outside Buckingham Palace, would surely send a powerful message.
By the way, Prince Charles does not even squeeze his own toothpaste onto his brush. A servant does that for him:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/16/1037080965729.html
(Not strictly relevant to this issue, but I thought I would mention it anyway).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)There are, of course, three valets dedicated to this task. The Royal Left Buttock Spreader, the Royal Right Buttock Spreader, and the Royal Wiper. Fairly low on the totem pole as far as the Palace staff goes, but everyone has to (get this) start at the bottom!!!!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)because you could make suggestions to the Monarch while they were immobile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_of_the_Stool
christx30
(6,241 posts)If we can't hold into Scotland through a vote, we'll do it through breeding.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Or jus primae noctis.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)sabbat hunter
(6,834 posts)the Queen was not supposed to get involved in politics.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And she won't. She is the adult at the table. She knows her role and will keep it that way.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)reminder that they will still the monarchy.
denem
(11,045 posts)at the Highland Games in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2014090720833/the-queen-prince-charles-braemar-highland-games/
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Mr Salmond said he wanted the Queen to remain head of state in a separate Scotland as her ancestors were, although many Nationalists are republicans who want to get rid of the monarchy.
Rejecting reports that she is worried about the break-up of Britain after next Friday's referendum, he said: 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 the monarch.
Mr Salmond, who has regular private meetings with the Queen, was pressed whether she had expressed her views about separation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11085691/Keep-the-Queen-out-of-the-Scottish-referendum-campaign-Buckingham-Palace-says.html
denem
(11,045 posts)The Palace is just as likely to be responding to the Telegraph's front page. But worse "Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, risked controversy ..." Risking Controversy?
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)They can all go to Hell, them and pretenders (House of Bush), IMHO!
And I have Stuarts and Vans in my ancestry, BFD.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)or other folks in government don't like it, what would happen? Could they refuse to accept it, freeze Scotland's assets, something like that? I'm curious.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)...That while the Queen's powers are quite blunt and rarely used, they are astonishingly powerful.
One move that occurs to this ignorant foreigner is that if she doesn't like the result, she can dissolve Parliament and make it so that there is no government other than herself to accept the secession vote, which she may not. The subsequent election would then be an issue election on Scottish secession, where the Scots would be outnumbered ten to one by loyal subjects.
Having many many billions in personal assets is of course another way to sway public opinion. The Queen's options are effectively unlimited, subject only to her own standards of good taste.
Edit: It's important to remember, however, the truly dangerous issue here, which is that four million pissed off Scots is more than enough to end humanity and possibly the universe itself.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)to Tanuki:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014890883#post31
No one is concerned but the capitalist class, and no doubt the paper is catering to them. If the Commoners bought more copies of the Telegragh, it was likely for fish wrap or bird cages.
denem
(11,045 posts)The Games are being held about 15 miles from Balmoral - the Queen's (real) home
Caption: So I said, I am concerned about your health Prime Minister; All of a sudden, you're looking quite ... old.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I still wouldn't want QE2's job...
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the Scottish referendum campaign is "categorically wrong", Buckingham Palace has said.
The comments follow press reports that Her Majesty was concerned about the prospect of Scottish independence.
It also follows a statement from First Minister Alex Salmond, who said the Queen "will be proud" to be the monarch of an independent Scotland.
The Palace insisted the referendum was "a matter for the people of Scotland".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149
tabasco
(22,974 posts)The Scots should vote themselves out simply because the British perpetuate a "royal" class of do-nothings.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)doing their jobs in the House of Commons or House of Lords ...
Oh? You meant a different group of "do-nothings" did you?
roamer65
(36,747 posts)A federal election would probably derail a "yes" on independence in Scotland. Sounds like this independence vote is evolving into a referendum on Cameron.