I don’t know about anyone else but I for one was not truly surprised when the story broke that certain members of the Scottish
Independence Movement were planning on taking their treason one step further by
not only breaking up the 307 year old union but even further than that, once they get the yes vote they seek to declare Scotland independent (which I seriously doubt) they’re also going to abolish the Monarchy as well.
.svg)
This latest one of course clearly contradicts earlier
promises made by Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond that independent Scotland would continue to
remain a Kingdom, this could mean only one of two things, either Salmond is a liar
or he’s simply not in control of the Scottish National Party as he appears to
be, either way it does not reflect very well on him as a leader if his own
faction can’t even get their story straight. One cover story used by some who would
defend Salmond and his ilk is that when Salmond mentioned keeping the Queen he
was only referring to an interim constitution, but the long term plan is to
hold a referendum on the issue and eventually remove the monarchy so that they
would be no more Queen of Scots. I for one find it amazing that they could come
up with such an explanation even after Salmond made it clear that was not in
the cards, I’m yet to find out what the real plan is and who to believe.
Due to the nature of many of my earlier articles, some might
even been inclined to think that I (and other monarchists) would see no problem
with the breakup so long as the Queen remains as Head of State but they couldn't
be more wrong, for one simple reason, many monarchist are also unionist as well
who totally support the continuity of the United Kingdom as a strong united
entity, this is not to say that unionism and monarchism are synonymous but one
cause will certainly help to strengthen the other.What I find rather hypocritical about those who push this
separatist republican movement is that they claim that they want to have their own
head of state (echoing the same dribble stated by republican movements in other
parts of the Commonwealth) instead of being ruled by an “English” monarch. However anyone who has ever been exposed to a
basic inkling of British history will know perfectly well that the royal family
is every bit as Scottish as it is English, seeing as the current royal family
is actually descended from James VI, the Scottish Monarch from the House of Stuart who also came to rule
England when the House of Tudor died out, since then every monarch to occupy
the Throne has had the blood of all the old English and Scottish Kings flowing
through their veins, thus their claim to rule the United Kingdom is every bit
as valid
I mean seriously what could Salmond possible have to gain
from independence anyway?, sure the story of “Braveheart” is great
entertainment but let’s be practical we’re not in the days of Robert the Bruce
and Edward Longshanks anymore and Scotland has a lot to lose from this rather short
sighted move which for Salmond and his cronies is little more than a chance for
bragging rights, that could only end in long term disaster and damage Scotland’s
economy. The fact of the matter is, in this particular scenario the con’s far
outweigh the pro’s even the European Union and the United States have warned
the transition to independence might not go as smoothly as the political elite
wish for it to be.
As I’ve said before in previous article, becoming a republic
simply for the sake of being a republic is pointless and even if republicanism
is not the goal as Salmond claim independence for the sake of it is just as
pointless, and no matter which way you spin it any attempt by the sinister
political to dissolve the monarchy of
the United Kingdom, whether it’s by turning all of Britain into a single
republic or by breaking up the union into varying constituent republics or even
just dissolving the union itself forming disunited kingdoms in its wake, it all
adds up to the same thing: TREASON
