I HAVE watched with ever increasing horror the ongoing “reporting” of the demise of the lady whom I have thought of, for many years, as Mrs Queen; the unending prattle of the London based television channels being more than the average viewer in Scotland could bear.
Thankfully the many words reproduced in The National have been more sensible and understandable coming from both sides of the independence spectrum.
A few things have particularly grated with me.
The first one was that these clever media people said that there would hardly be anyone left in the country who would have known any other monarch. Wrong; there are quite a lot of us who do not want to be written off in that fashion.
READ MORE: Queen Elizabeth's Balmoral fireplace motto was worthy of comment
Personally when she came to the throne Elizabeth the First of Scotland was my fourth reigning monarch, alright I have no personal memories of the first two, but I can recall quite a lot concerning her father.
Then we went on to the universal mispronunciation of the name of St Giles’ Cathedral, insisting that an extra s was tacked on to the end off the name; the reference to Braemar as “Braemmer” was also a fairly unforgiveable faux pas.
By managing to arrange that her passing took place in Scotland, Queen Elizabeth ensured that a whole lot of things happened which the whole Westminster government and Monarchy system had not really anticipated until it was too late.
If she had passed away in England we, here in Scotland, would have had barely a mention; instead we were suddenly projected on to the screens and consciousness of the world. The pictures shown of Edinburgh and Scotland must have worked wonders for the image of our country around the world and showed us as an equal on the world stage.
When a member of my family, travelling on a business trip, checked in to her hotel in Chicago a few days ago, the hotel receptionist, after noting her Scottish identity, offered her sincere condolences; that says it all.
The other important thing to arise in the new circumstances is the personal position of the new King Charles. He now has a problem. For years I, probably along with thousands of other citizens of Scotland, have had mixed feelings regarding his position amongst us; a mixture of resentment at his wealthy and privileged position paid for by all of us, and a feeling of pity that he was trapped by heredity in a situation with no escape route.
Over the years he has done, or been responsible for, a number very worthwhile movements involving, for instance, young people and charitable causes. In Scotland think particularly of Dumfries House.
Alongside this has been various other reported activities such as talking to plants, which could usually raise a few indulgent smiles, along with his concerns for the future of the planet.
Soon he is going to come up against the intentions of this disastrously right-wing Westminster government and its plans to progress laws which will have the effect of hastening the demise of our very existence on this planet. Large scale oil extraction and fracking being examples.
Will he have the courage to stand up against these policies and fail to approve them?
READ MORE: BBC blunders about the geography of our capital are revealing
This is not a time to acquiesce in such things by saying that the monarch does not seek to influence governments. It is time to stand up and be counted and as a last resort refuse to take on the job of being crowned king in such circumstances.
Could it come to a situation whereby he returns to Scotland to become King of Scots and lives in relative contentment on a much reduced scale and actively supporting the eco-friendly policies of an independent Scottish Government?
Such a head of state might just be acceptable to both sides of the monarchy/elected head of state discussion, here in Scotland, even for a number of years through what will be a difficult and possibly protracted period in our lives.
We could even get him a bicycle to get around on in a modern eco-friendly way.
George M Mitchell
Dunblane
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