I’D like to ask R Mill Irving, (Letters, December 31), of which Queen of Scots is he an admirer? I ask this because, as far as I am aware, the last “Queen of Scots” was Mary, Queen of Scots.
It’s certainly not Elizabeth II of England who chose, in 1953, not to be crowned Queen of Scots. As I have stated in previous correspondence, Elizabeth exercised her superiority over Scotland by merely touching the “Honours of Scotland”. As such she was declaring Scotland to be a “vassal state” coming under her power – but not declaring herself as our queen.
I believe this is an important aspect of our history, particularly in reference to support of independence because it so clearly underlines Scotland’s place in “The Union”. I would therefore have hoped that someone who has been a member of the SNP for 50 years would have done a bit of research into Scottish history, if for no other reason than to establish in his own mind exactly why independence is such a desirable outcome for Scotland.
It has been made abundantly clear during the Brexit kerfuffle that Scotland doesn’t matter – as long as it is available to England as a source of oil income, cannon fodder for her wars, a dumping place for nuclear weapons and possibly even discarded nuclear subs. (In respect of the Cannon fodder remark – during the two world wars, Scotland lost, in proportion to our respective populations, many more soldiers, sailors and airmen than England did.)
Scotland is worthy of being much more than just an afterthought to Westminster. We are a nation and a country. We deserve to be independent and to stand on our own feet. We have the means and the abilities to do so. Maybe after that we can decide by a majority vote whether or not we wish to retain a “royal family” who chose not to become our monarch, but to be Kings or Queens of England only.
Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes
I NOTE that one reader has declared themselves as a “monarchist” who thinks we should respect our Saxe-Coburg/Battenburg royal family and took offence at the weekend cartoon.
I have a simple question to ask: just what have they done to earn our respect?
I am an ex-Royal Navy Officer who saw active service in 1982 in the Falklands. As a Sub-Lieutenant I met Lord Mountbatten and was impressed with his honesty and integrity.
While posted at Dartmouth as a Lieutenant I was “told off” to keep an eye on the current Duke of York on the sports field. The Duke of York as a young man was arrogant and ignorant, trying to ride roughshod over hundreds of years of naval tradition because he did not see why, as a royal, he should comply with Queen’s Regulations and accept that at Dartmouth he was just one “Snotty” amongst a hundred.
His younger brother was unable to hack Royal Marine training at Lympstone and was “binned” in Marine terminology; meaning he did not have what it took to be a Marine Officer.
So excuse me if I have trouble respecting a royal family sitting on billions of pounds of cash and assets in off shore accounts while screaming poverty and expecting taxpayers to cough up for the very things we taxpayers have to cough up for to keep our own homes water tight, warm and in good repair.
She may have been crowned “Queen of Scots” the evening before her English coronation at Westminster as Queen of England, but maybe she needs reminding the people of Scotland are sovereign and we retain the right, under Scots Law and constitutional practice, to rid ourselves of any monarch who does not act in Scotland’s interests.
Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright
MR Liam Fox is worried that his boss and her pals are losing the bond between the people and their government. No such bond existed other than in the fantasy beamed out by the Tory media , a truth in particular high relief in Scotland.
The last election gave the Tories in England less than 30% support of the total UK electorate, about 30% of whom did not vote at all. In no way can that be claimed by them to reflect a bond, especially as the subsequent parliamentary majority was (temporarily) secured by buying a deal with the DUP.
Mrs May and her confederates in reality cannot lose what they never had!
What they can do, if Scots allow it, is to contrive to weaken the Scottish Government via inter alia insults and denigration of Scotland, and its constituency MPs in the House, while encouraging their MSPs, devoid of integrity and any pretence of interest in Holyrood successes, to follow that aim.
Nothing less despicable is imaginable!
J Hamilton
Bearsden
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel