Sunday, 29 January 2012

Part of the Union.. or maybe not? Eck prevaricates....

God Save the Queen! 

I'm glad I'm not a Nationalist:  the number of impossible things you have to believe before breakfast multiplies day by day.

Today's example;

On the Andrew Marr show today, Alex Salmond added another layer of confusion (or is it a smokescreen) by declaring that "the union of crowns was 1603, so the union could be dated from that time. It's SNP policy to keep the Queen , so that union would be maintained after independence". (about 26 mins in).

What is to be made of this statement? ...... is Eck being truthful, can you believe him? Is it credible? Is he, as rumour has it, infatuated with Liz and she with him? Is  he really a unionist mole? Would Joan McAlpine consider it "anti-Scottish"?

The fact is that SNP members have been strung along for the last eighty years on a desire for "independence" from the UK. No compromise, no fear. Not some weak, milk-and-water compromise that keeps the UK, the Queen, the Bank of England and most other UK institutions. What sort of "independence" is that?

Many people support the Nationalists campaign out of a desire for a republican state, free of fusty, dusty, anglo-monarchism and other decorations of the British Constitution. Many other haven't considered (why would you?) the possibility that their labours on behalf of "independence" would be co-opted into a monarchist plot to save the union by pretending to be "independent" while keeping the monarchy of all things! And the pound and the BoE and...etc. etc.

Why would any republican nationalist support such an enterprise?

Why would any Nationalist who has dedicated their adult life to "independence"?

No comments:

Post a Comment