THE death of Queen Elizabeth was an apolitical event, or so we were constantly told.
Any hint of a suggestion that the newly-crowned Charles was presiding over a divided kingdom was panned by sources “close to” figures such as Gordon Brown and Scottish Secretary Alister Jack.
Those same sources were of course silent when BBC correspondent Nicholas Witchell claimed it was “very important to her [the Queen] to feel that the United Kingdom would remain the United Kingdom”.
READ MORE: Unionist attempts to 'politicise Queen's death' expose 'rampant hypocrisy'
And the UK media's reports of Charles’s joyous accession to the throne were strangely empty of views which didn’t fit that narrative.
It seems that politicising the monarch’s death is actually all good, as long as it’s to bolster support for the Union.
Now, one Tory MSP seems to have confirmed that suspicion.
Speaking to Holyrood magazine anonymously, the “senior Scottish Conservative” suggested that "the Queen, in failing health, had travelled to Balmoral in the knowledge that she would die there, and with the intention of bolstering support for the Union”.
Whether this crass suggestion was actually on the Queen’s mind when she travelled to Balmoral is obviously unknown. The late monarch had been convinced to speak against Scottish independence ahead of the 2014 referendum.
But the idea that it will have any impact is likely only wishful thinking on the part of that (unsurprisingly anonymous) Tory MSP.
READ MORE: Dutch TV pokes funs at BBC coverage of Queen's death with risky joke
Dr Alan MacDonald, a senior lecturer in Scottish history from the University of Dundee, also told Holyrood magazine: “The fact that there was an outpouring of affection for the Queen doesn’t mean there was an outpouring of support for the Union …
"It would be rash to suppose that a snapshot of public opinion in the period between the death and funeral of someone is an indicator of a long-term change.
“Changes like that don’t happen overnight. If you’re expecting to wake up and find a world transformed, that’s rather absurd.”
Absurdity from the Scottish Tories? Surely not.
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