‘It’s The Sun Wot Won It’ was the headline in the Sun following the 1992 General election. I think my revised version applies to Alex Salmond becoming a born
again Monarchist!
Take this extract from an interview with Salmond:
‘Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland has just given a gushing interview about the Queen in which he raises an intriguing prospect. The SNP leader tells Prospect magazine that an independent Scotland would keep the Queen as head of state while England would be better off as a republic.’
And listen to this in relation to the recent Royal wedding and Edinburgh: “I was too busy with the campaign but I should have had this entire city – I would have had – covered in royal standards”.
It looks like the Queen has used her charm again. First Ireland, now Scotland – you have to hand it to her she really can win hearts and minds!
Historically there is an interesting point to make. Before the Act of Union in 1707 there was a unity of the crown so that the two countries shared a monarch – now Alex wants one all to himself! It was the Act of Union that created ‘Great Britain’. I think he is dreaming of a Stuart Monarch again! Queen Anne, who was the last Queen of England and Scotland (1702-07) and the first Queen of Great Britain and Ireland from 1707, was the last member of the House of Stuart to sit on the throne.
I would hate to see what is probably the most successful political and economic union in history broken up by short sighted nationalism. That doesn’t mean we can’t have more devolution but I hope it will always be in the context of the Union between the countries that make up Britain.
I think the next step for Alex is to promote the House of Lords as the chamber where the devolved parts of the UK are brought together again – now there’s an interesting thought!
Forgive me for being so forthcoming, but I believe there was more prosperity, in the majority, when the world was ruled by monarchs.
The world has never been sustainworthily ruled;
not even by super-rich and fat Monarchs and Benign-Dictators.
Wot we Need is an all-round sustain-worthy Standard-ism;
surely ?
0853T05
I think the next step for Alex is to promote the House of Lords as the chamber where the devolved parts of the UK are brought together again – now there’s an interesting thought!
It is clearly twittish to imagine breaking up a Union of such a small territory in the first place.
A unicameral House is perfectly adequate for that purpose.
The Scottish office always was rather larger than the Welsh office, as I recall.
Devolving further powers to that Assembly and legislature has surely been valuable.
It would be very wise to reconsider the evolution of the county councils in England in to much larger units of organisation.
It is the business of public administration.
The problem with the County councils is their ancient structure far more ancient than, the Office of Lord Chancellor, which we have been so lucky to “demote”.
The “Counties” are what they say they are,
the original “Earldoms” (Earl+Countess rememba’?!) These were created at the time of William Marshall, the first Earl of England, and Wales in the late 11thC.
They evolved, in Wales, from the various sub-kingdoms or principalities, and were a method of carving up the country in to parts governed by those chosen directly by the monarch.
I don’t need a simple history lesson, but the Lords Lieutenants, like Rivers in Dorset, and
Tiggy’s sister in Powys, are fiercely proud
of their tasks; even the office of Sheriff,
people take great pride in, and yet they are superfluous in two counties out of three.
The Lord Chancellor’s Office delegates, or did delegate to the Lord Lieutenant’s office, and probably still does, but the amalgamation of Counties in to larger units, is peripheral to the unfinished business of Lords Reform, which will probably take another hundred years.
The Earls do still have an Earl’s bench I understand?
It was a great mistake to have a LOCAL referendum on how to proceed with Regional government, since it put the kybosh on it straight away, which was quite obvious it would.
Proceeding with an English regional government plan would make the purpose of the Union much clearer, not least to Alex Salmond, as noble Lord CS rightly reports!
It would be much clearer than mud that both the Welsh and Scottish assembly/parliament were done in the interest of greater administrative efficiency.
When a wedding is held in Dorset, both of the couples, and their families, living mainly in Surrey, it must be perfectly obvious that huge efficiency of government can be obtained by
welding different counties properly together.
When the real population of Dorset villages is about 1/4 of that claimed in the censuses, except for six weeks in the summer and occasional weekends, it can only make good
sense to form larger units.
The DISTRICT councils are doing this already in their economy drives, by appointing Joint Chief executive for two districts, or even three. That is an excellent move in the right direction of efficiency but not nearly enough. The planning offices of district councils are also working together in groups.
Why not turn the Lords into a federal parliament with powers of scrutiny and have the Commons as an English parliament?
If Salmond were to suggest it he’d win overwhelming support in England.
The word “federal” is not helpful to the discussion; in fact I am unwise even to refer to it.
We are United, and a union we will continue to enjoy.
Toque is only repeating what Alex Salmond apparently thinks.
The purpose of Lords’ reform is, and has been ,to reduce its powers in that way, but to increase them with regard to the importance of European delegated legislation, which is huge, but to make it democratic, but not necessarily accountable, in so doing.
Reform of the English counties might well be considered at the same time as further Lords’
democratization. It would make much more sense to far more people, and number crunching is the name of the game.
I fear that the LibDem party in govt does not have the expertise to push through its party demands, and that their coalition partners
are making fools of them, whilst pushing back the boundaries of Royal prerogative as far as they can as fast as they can.
Isn’t it exciting?
Alex Salmond has evidently been impressed by the “Medium and not the message”, even though he is first secretary of his own legislature.
He still only has a little medium and plenty of message.
Apologies:
That is Legge Bourke, Lord lieutenant of Powys, of recent years Tiggy was the nanny and excellent confidant to HRH William and Harry during difficult times, and her son was an exquisite page boy at William’s wedding.
There may well not be any necessary connection between the Earls of the kingdom
today and the lord lieutenants of the counties.
To re-arrange the English regions into three or four county groupings, would require a devaluing of the roles of Lord Lieutenant, which most Countryside people, with a big “C”, are not prepared to accept.
I believe the Welsh counties are at loggerheads with the Assembly due to such differences, so the likelihood of consistency throughout the “Union” is low.
The value of the Lord Lieutenants of the Home counties is a good deal less, on account of their absorption in to the London area, remembering that Southward cathedral, just by London Bridge, is/was until recently one of the two cathedrals of Greater London, Surrey.
Curious name ‘Salmond’:
“A Coat of Arms granted to a Salmon family is ermines, three salmons haurient proper, in chief a gold cross pattee. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Roger Salmon, which was dated 1210, in the “Curia Rolls of Bedfordshire”, during the reign of King John, known as “Lackland”, 1199 – 1216.”
Mr Salmond despises the HoL and has openly campaigned for its abolition. Is he the inspiration behind Lord Blagger I wonder? It is a curious fact of history that had King Bridei Mac Bili of the Picts lost the Battle of Nechtansmere there would be no Scotland at all it would all be English.
Perhaps the Pictish nobility are on the rise?
Ref: Last name: Salmon
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Salmon
Battle of Nechtansmere
http://www.information-britain.co.uk/famdates.php?id=172
Mr Salmond despises the HoL and has openly campaigned for its abolition
It may be that he does not have a clear position on the subject.
If there were regional assemblies in England as there are in S+W, there would still be no more need to delegate from any other legislative chamber than the House of commons.
It is not that 100% democracy in the hofL is not a good idea but that the entrenched positions of the Marquises and Earls is so long established as to be quite unmoveable, an opinion that I know my noble Lord Norton will be glad that I hold!
If you think of the Earldoms as “Countiesates” (an invented word)as in Earls and Countesses, then the need to re-organize
County government before doing anything else becomes perfectly clear.
I don’t quite remember how many Earls there are at any given time, possibly 100 max, and those earldoms are based entirely on landed property of a no uncertain extent, which are completely respected by the masses/rank and file of all classes and castes of society.
Mr Salmond may go round an Earl’s estate as a tourist one day and talk republican the next.
Many people do!
How many of those earls are the grandchildren or great grandchildren of First lords or thereabouts?!
There are things about the acquisition of landed estates (and fox hounds)and the desire to own them, that takes some beating.
Willy Herbert of Swansea a businessman in the mid 16thC acquired the sacked nunnery of Wilton house for a song, and the same creation of the Earldom of Pembroke has been singing ever since.
The Genealogical claims over large estates of the Squirearchy or Baronetcy can even today be long drawn out and convoluted.
In terms of property development, 50 or even 75 years is not too long a time to wait for a
part of a jigsaw to become available, to square the circle or vice versa.
The same applies to genealogical descent and landed estates, exactly now as it did in the time of Henry Tudor of the Welsh dynasty upon the English throne for a blessed 130 years!
It is not satisfactory in an age when absolute and exact GENETIC tests are available in the lab, to ask for anything less than 100% democratisation.
It is not just a desire to lose the genealogy of monarchy in to the back rooms of history, but also those of the Gracious Marquises,Earls and non royal Dukes who have
most to lose.
The subtleties of difference between genetics and genealogy may well return to haunt them, if they do not address it now!
My answer to all this is a dual monarchy/presidency which Noble lord Irvine approached gingerly in about 1999, for the Queen’s speech when as Lord Chancellor he sat facing the assembly of both chambers for the Queen’s speech, but his seat a little beneath the throne.
For an publicly elected Lord speaker always to do the same may well save a lot of tears in years to come, now that we are thinking about it.
What prevents a Republic from taking root is the HoL. I am particularly opposed to the hereditaries leaving the house under any reform as they watch the Monarchies six.
Mr Salmond knows this only too well. Its not clear how the Scottish Parliament represents the Scottish establishment other that indirectly through the HoL. In any respect the house is an impediment to his ambition and long may it stay that way.
On the subject of nobility, Earls etc; the principal of primogeniture has been well established for centuries in England. However when the land north of Hadrian’s wall was Pictland primogeniture was not the established practice. The Picts were a matrilineal society – bloodlines passed through the mother, and rarely did a son succeed a father to the crown of Pictland. Given the number of royal cousins one assumes the King was elected? An appointment would have been too controversial.
“My answer to all this is a dual monarchy/presidency”. This is a naïve viewpoint. The regent represents perfection and is God’s representative on earth under our system of governance and Church. A republics president would not aspire to any of this and the monarchy would become a hindrance to be done away with. Remember what happened to the Romanovs?
If politics is the art of the possible an indirectly elected house IS possible. It would be neither a threat to the monarchy or the primacy of the Commons. It would represent the establishment by virtue of the many establishment figures that sit in the house. What is amusing is the executive holding up manifesto commitments as sacred and inviolate when the legal position is neither. The executive could quite easily take up the position of an indirectly elected house, it does not, it prefers to play fast and loose with the constitution ignoring existing precedents.
One has to wonder whether what is “happening” here is “keep onside with the popular super-rich-and-protected ineffectuals” (the German-Windsor Royalty)
to gain Time !
The Monarchy should watch out as Salmond may be a Trojan horse, or, a Greek baring gifts.
It cannot be in the SNP’s interests to back down on their republican views. They will lose so many votes. Except, of course, around Balmoral where their livelihoods depend on it.