Halftime in America
1 hour ago
18 June 2009
The Press Association is reporting that the SNP may have “airbrushed” portrait images of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh from a photograph of nationalist politicians in a town hall chamber which was used in an SNP leaflet distributed in the Falkirk area. The BBC has said that the royal portraits were digitally replaced with images of Robert Burns and William Wallace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Incidentally, before someone takes a butter-wouldn’t-melt line over my implication that some in the SNP think of the British Queen as the “English Queen”, I would point out that on 13th November 2002, in response to the Queen’s Speech in the House of Commons, Alex Salmond delivered this disgraceful line: “This is an English Queen’s Speech for England’s Parliament.”
Firstly I can assume that someone's arse will be getting kicked over this - it was clearly wrong. But don't also take a butter-wouldn't-melt line yourself. Some of the most objectionable republicans are in the Labour Party, a unionist party.
As for Salmond's statement, surely he was referring to the "Queen's Speech" as being "English" - it certainly fits with the second half of the statement. Salmond is actually one of our strongest monarchists - so I would hesitate before assuming any intentional slur.
Alex Salmond was a staunch republican back in his 79 Group / Scottish Socialist Society days.
Now he claims to see value in retaining “Elizabeth, Queen of Scots” (twee, eh?) as monarch to maintain the “social union” with the other nations of the United Kingdom.
(That’s a red herring, if ever I saw one! Do we have a tight “social union” with Jamaica, Belize and Papua New Guinea?!)
Mightn’t Salmond’s supposed change of heart be part of the “conscious decision” which he has admitted he took to “project the cause of independence” in an “inclusive way”?
We’ll have to disagree over the grammar. I read it as the “Speech” of the “English Queen”, paralleling his fallacious and divisive reference to “England’s Parliament”.
The Royal Family are indeed English. But whether they are English or Scottish, there is no need for them whatsoever. They symbolise the privileged, unwritten, sectarian establishment, it's gentlemen's clubs along with it's appointed and landed gentry. They have no place in a modern democracy. In fact, it could be argued that many our recent PMs have undermined our Head of State by acting in such an openly presidential manner, without actually being voted President. If the UK is ultimately to remain intact, it needs to become a federal republic. If not, bye,bye UK.
Gee, I feel like an extremist after saying that. Is being republican an extreme viewpoint?
On your trivia point SU, they weren't the first and won't be the last, to be airbrushed for effect.
Does anyone really care?
I suspect they were airbrushed out as it was an election lraflet.
But really what is your point? The only folk thse days that bother about photos of the queen are Rangers supporters , and a diminishing band of them. Get into the 21st century!
Andrew BOD:
The Queen is English, but her mother considered herself to be Scottish and her husband was originally Philippos of Greece and Denmark. Prince William’s ancestry has been estimated to be 35% English and 14% Scottish. For what it’s worth!
Now, I disagree with your argument for republicanism. Despite only really having a ceremonial and ambassadorial role, I believe the monarchy’s benefits to be further reaching, both economically and socially, than republicans are prepared to acknowledge.
First economically. Nations have distinct brand images in the international marketplace. These are complex mixes of different forms of knowledge and experience of countries’ cultures, their people, products, political and governmental integrity, legal systems, social structures and various other factors which give rise to valuational appraisals.
At the simplest level, these national brand images boil down to stereotypes like Germany – workmanship; Italy – design; Switzerland – precision and Japan – reliability.
But detailed studies, such as the Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index, reveal that Britain’s image is uncommonly complex, in no small measure due to the perception that we succeed in balancing a keen sense of our own history, an appreciation of tradition and our relatively conservative values with a vibrant knowledge-based economic base and a socially progressive, internationalist outlook. The monarchy is a vital component of that image.
On the social side, an extended royal family of great antiquity provides a sense of historical and cultural continuity. Today’s younger people will carry fond memories of the Queen Mother throughout their lives, and will on average see five or six generations of royals. This serves to both root people in the past and help project them towards the future. Older people alive today may still remember George V, yet the relatively contemporary attitudes of the young royals must surely serve as a reassurance that modernity and decency (even if punctuated by occasional youthful lapses of judgment) aren’t actually set in opposition to each other.
And bear in mind that the royal family is a flexible enough structure to evolve and accommodate the various strengths of its members. Prince Charles is perhaps the best example. He has become a national treasure, constantly poking holes in orthodoxy and encouraging self-criticism on an array of issues. And then there’s Prince Andrew’s ongoing work as a roving ambassador for British business, the benefits of which – while impossible to quantify – undoubtedly far outweigh the (not insubstantial) costs. So at under £1 per taxpayer per year, I think the royal system offers tremendous value.
From the BBC story:
'Local SNP councillor Cecil Meiklejohn blamed an "overly enthusiastic" local party member for removing the royal portraits.'
The real question for me is why did this "overly enthusiastic" person do it in the first place?
What offended them so?
Was it just that they don't like royalty, or was it the fact that the people pictured are English troubling for the enthusiastic nat? Or perhaps this person was outraged at a British Army uniform - is this the work of a Brit-hating butchers apron burner? I really think the SNP should explain how this bizarre behaviour could happen in a responsible 'civic nationalist' kind of party. To my untrained eye it looks like the behaviour of an unreconstructed swivel-eyed looney, but maybe that's just me...
Who cares?
SU
Why do you find "Queen of Scots" "twee"? No more twee than any other titles such as Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of the Solomon Islands etc.
Apparently despite the Fijians ditching her (allegedly with the help of our American friends), the Fijian clans still class her as "Paramount Chief". Is that twee?
Remember that the Scottish monarch was known as King/Queen of Scots back in time.
Anyway the first person that I remember calling Brenda "Queen of Scots" was David Steel when he addressed her as such at the first opening of the Scottish Parliament. Brenda in turn indicated that Chas should be more known in Scotland by his Scottish title "Duke of Rothesay", the historic title of the Scottish heir apparent.
I'm well aware of the origin. It's the maternalistic tone that to these ears gives it a tweeness: Scots rather than Scotland.
Unemployment at near record levels - the westminster government is borrowing half a billion a day... And, fresh from avoiding £40,000 capital gains tax by flipping his second home, Labour 'honourable member' Eric Joyce of Falkirk (officially Britain's most expensive MP) 'demands' an apology??!!!!
Who cares about the queen being airbrushed??! Not I.
The sooner Scotland's answerable to the people of scotland the better.
SU - when has the Queen ever claimed to be English? Her mother, I know, when asked in Canada if she was English or Scots responded that she was a Canadian.
As for AWC's statement that
"But really what is your point? The only folk thse days that bother about photos of the queen are Rangers supporters , and a diminishing band of them. Get into the 21st century!"
I think it is he who needs to step into reality and out of his warped, sectarian bubble.
SU
I don't buy your romantic image of the monarchy. It jars with all things fair and democratic, and sets a dangerous example of unearned privilege.
As for the UK being 'complex', I would go further and say it is positively confused. Our brand image for many is that of a country clinging to remnants of it's past empire, symbolised by it's current constitutional mess, often being led up the garden path by another former colony - the US.
Unless we have a written constitution, and real powers for the four nations that make up the UK, that are fair and balanced, where the vast majority of citizens are comfortable, positive and proud within the whole set up, then we will go our independent ways. However, I fear the establishment, underpinned by the monarchy, will never get to that position, no matter how corrupt our politicians become. There would just be too much privilege to give up. No matter, I could live with independence.
I wouldn't characterise anything I said as "romantic". I'll confess to a focus on certain rather intangible qualities, but that's about it!
Unearned privilege? Perhaps. Alongside involuntary responsibility. Rather them than me, bluntly - but I disagree that a hereditary monarchy is in any way undemocratic. We're talking about a figurehead, not anything as vulgar as a president!
I'm having to be selective here, as your post contains much with which I disagree. So just one further point. You speak of citizens being "comfortable, positive and proud". Actually - and you can check the surveys yourself - most are, which rather invalidates your premise.
Damnit, Wardog's back! Things were relatively civilised around here for a while too.
Great example of unanswerable double-barrelled rhetoric: "was your tongue hanging out as you posted your drivel?"
No, my tongue wasn't hanging out as I posted what isn't drivel.
Now, I'm well aware of the protocol. So the SNP should have used a photo taken elsewhere. Simple, eh?
Wardog,
That excuse would be slightly more believable if Local SNP councillor Cecil Meiklejohn hadn't let the cat out the bag by admitting that a local member had been over enthusiastic with his/her airbrush.
That the leader of the SNP group, Mr David Alexander, is now frantically spinning that it was deliberate all along suggests that the SNP know only too well how damaging their extremist butcher's apron-burning Brit haters wing are to their electoral chances....
Wardog - You never actually have a point do you? You're just a negative reaction.
Then again, you do go by the name of Wardog :P