It means what she wants it to mean. It’s the Queen’s English, after all. 
I don’t even think it was that - I mean, I voted “yes”, but we were always going to accept the will of the majority. It’s not like disgruntled yes voters are about to take up arms.
It was just a speech to say “that’s done, let’s move on” or some such thing. She had to say something, and it had to be bland because, well, she’s the Queen - it’s her job to be bland.
It is a heavy burden that many people somehow bear stoically.
I don’t share the OP’s take, but I do find the statement a little short of the usual careful impartiality, and wonder why it had to be made, at least so soon. Of course one might expect the queen to be in favour of the union, but she’s supposed to keep her views to herself. This statement is a little too upfront about it.
…one of the things that helps to unite us all…
…throughout the United Kingdom…
…Scotland and indeed all parts of this country…
Given that a lot of people in Scotland are today disappointed that the union it still in place, I find these parts a little questionable. I’d have rephrased them. Maybe Her Maj has really strong views and that’s as neutral as Palace PR staff could get out of her.
Charles seems to chafe at it occasionally, though.
Too bad. There was a completely open and free democratic election, and union won.
She’d still be the Queen of Scotland even had union not won.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m pleased that Scotland voted No. The problem is, to me it sounds like the queen is pleased, and she’s not supposed to be, not publicly anyway.
Oh, come on. That’s a ridiculous point of view, given the circumstances. I might, possibly, agree with you had she made a statement urging union before the vote, but after? No. No way. She’s perfectly entitled to indicate pleasure with the result.
The staff surely prepared two messages, one in case of Yes, one in case of No, ***both *** at least politely welcoming the results.
The first three very short paragraphs were probably exactly identical for both versions. “Yay, democracy, let’s respect it, no matter how excited people got.” Similarly the parting statement “you have all our support”. The longer but still short fourth and fifth paragraphs were the ones that were adapted to the results. Palace and Government staffers probably spent since Monday back-and-forth with each other massaging the bloody Hell out of the respective paragraphs while aware no matter how thoroughly they boiled all flavour out of it, people in the audience would still project upon it.
Because there HAD to be a reaction message either way, the reigning monarch does not not just have nothing to say. And this queen has the added factor of her mother having been of Scottish extraction.
(Emphasis mine)
No, she isn’t. This was a political matter and she is not free to indicate that she was pleased with the result.
I didn’t realize just how careful the Queen observed neutrality. Not taking direct positions on issues is one thing. But she feels that even showing approval for a ballot’s outcome is too much.
I wonder if Charles will be that circumspect. Obviously he won’t jump into daily politics. But there are a few causes that he’s known for caring about. Like the environment and global warming. I can see him making a distinction between a very obvious political argument and a cause that effects mankinds future. It’ll be interesting to see if he’ll be content to say and do nothing considered political as King.
Presumably if they had voted for independence they could then vote for a republic and that might involve taking over Balmoral, which I understand HRM and the family are the most fond of of all their palaces.
Balmoral is her personal property, so I can’t imagine it would be seized unless Scotland turned revolutionary.
Leave it to the experts. 
Actually, the future of the UK is something she is free to indicate her preference about.
Not just referring to this result, but there is precedent, her Grandfather made his opinions in Ireland quite clear several times for example. FWIW, they were usually favourable to the nationalists.
I had wondered if the previous Kings had taken neutrality to such lengths. It’s one thing to stay out of daily politics. But there are times that it might be appropriate to express some kind of opinion.
Her role is really hard for me to grasp. I guess our Secretary of State is the closest analogy. Hillary Clinton was very careful to avoid talking politics. That was a very rare period in her life. She’s lived and breathed politics since her college days. She wasn’t totally neutral even while serving as Secretary of State. She occasionally would react to day to day events.
You know, I just figured out your point. The absolute apex of neutrality would be a bland speech that could be delivered no matter how the vote went. You can’t get more neutral than that.
I finally understand what the speech writer was doing.
I stay out of these threads for a good reason, and should offer you that caution:
Don’t forget who owns the swans, and don’t forget what they’re capable of..
I see your point. HRH still wields some influence and power behind the scenes. There’s a lot more to her than ribbon cutting ceremonies and waving in parades. Exactly how much she influences events will never be known. She’s unique among the world leaders. Sixty years on the throne and no one knows exactly how much influence she has. There may never be another royal like her again.
I can see why she decided that she should stay out of it until near the end. She is half Scot herself, she loves Scotland. She might have been sympathetic to many of the claims of the independance group, if not their ultimate destination. On the other hand, she is Queen of the UK as a whole, not its constituent parts and even a whiff of being partial to separatism would have seen her out on her ear faster than you can say Charles I.