| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Alex Salmond tells Queen his vision for break-up of Britain |
| 2011-07-02 |
| The Scottish First Minister told the Queen for the first time in public that Scotland should become an “equal” but separate nation to England while retaining the Union of the Crowns. In a pointed message to the monarch that she has implicitly backed separation, he quoted back to her a speech she gave at Dublin Castle in May in which she said Britain and Ireland are “firm friends and equal partners”. Mr Salmond delivered his strident warning that the UK’s days are numbered during an address to the Scottish Parliament at the Royal opening of its fourth session since devolution began in 1999. The Queen is understood to have told David Cameron of her anxiety the 304-year-old Union between England and Scotland will be broken in the wake of Mr Salmond’s landslide election victory two months ago. The Scottish National Party leader intends to hold an independence referendum in the second half of his five-year term, but yesterday attempted to reassure the monarch she will remain head of state in Scotland regardless of the result. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Correct me iff I'm wrong, but technically speaking, wasn't Scotland already supposed to be in confederatist political, etc. union wid England as part of the original United Kingdom [England, Scotland, + Ireland = now Northern Ireland], where Scotland technically maintained its national "sovereignty" + "cooperated" wid the ruling English Monarchy later Parliament, albeit it ended up ultimately becoming dominated by England = London??? IIRC the Scottish Govt was officially "asked" many times by London to give its consent to the recruitment, etc. of Scots into the English, later "British" + "Commonwealth", military forces in addition to Scotland-affecting econ policies??? [MEL GIBSON = BRAVEHEART here]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-07-02 21:33 |
| #3 I think it's about time. Scotland and England are just too different for one to rule the other. It has long been noted that the reason Scotland has never had an effective king for long, is that they are their own worst enemy. Any time someone showed prospects as a leader, everyone would turn against him. But Scotland has an unusual and very interesting historical partner, in of all things, Poland. And even right now, the two have what the other needs. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-07-02 19:28 |
| #2 How about if Britain then loses the UN seat, since it won't be Britain anymore but England. Scotland as an independent nation with the Queen as head of state will be just another country in the Commonwealth. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-07-02 19:11 |
| #1 So does that mean if the UK divides and do the new nations make it two seats on the Security Council? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-07-02 18:25 |