Now I expect this sort of thing from Johnny Foreigner aceplace57, but you should know better.*
The Queen is “Her Majesty”. A prince or princess is “His/Her Royal Highness”.
Unfortunately, the architecture of other people’s buildings and homeopathy are among his other interests.
*Actually, I’m beginning to think you’re a continental, Monsieur Monj Toot.
I’ve got to think that the Commonwealth is far more influential through culture than the Empire was through shear political power simply because it isn’t resented, but considered a positive cultural tradition by most folks. Cultural power is far more subtle and effective than beatings.
The fact that there’s already a #the45plus hashtag actively campaigning on social media might explain why the Queen suggests that everyone respect the decision.
The key thing is the vote, at least by the last minute, wasn’t really a straight vote between The Proposed Change versus The Status Quo Ante.
With the large last-minute promises (bribes?) made jointly by all three UK political parties to make governance changes to Scotland’s benefit if the referendum failed, the Scots were really voting between [The better-than-today good deal Alex Salmond promised us] versus [The better-than-today good deal Cameron, Miliband, & What’s-his-name promised us]. The only option absolutely NOT on offer was [Status Quo Ante].
So I read the Queen’s opening sentence as mostly her committing to not going back on the last-ditch promises of HM government. Many of the Yes side hotheads are already anxious to ensure all the promises are fully fulfilled before the next general election because its traditional / constitutional (AIUI) that subsequent governments are under no obligation to respect the undertakings of the previous government. The Queen is saying “There’s no rush, I’ll ensure the promises stay in place.”
How thoroughly she’s actually in a position to enforce that promise over possible future political opposition is a question I’m not competent to speculate on.
Absolutely not. That is an unthinkable level of political involvement for a monarch. Not that her government, or parliament, has decided anything yet. Some politicians made some pledges in a campaign, that’s all. If they break them, then it is up to the voters to punish them.
Realpolitik. It would cost a lot of votes because the monarchy is too popular in Scotland. ISTR one of things Alex Salmond did was to persuade them to drop the idea of becoming a republic should Scotland gain independence. So the policy now is that Scotland would be a constitutional monarchy under the queen.
There’s a HUGE difference between legalizing pot and voting to become independent of a national union you’ve been a part of since 1707. (1603 if you want to go back to the uniting of the monarchy itself)
This is the part that makes it seem like it wouldn’t work the other way around. It seems to be treating Scotland as still part of the country.
But this part makes me agree with aceplace. With independence, there’s a huge task ahead that might need help. Without, the task is much smaller. It would seem to be just be helping with the division.
Not to mention those that think the whole thing was rigged due to one low quality video, a picture already explained (and even Yes Dundee, the “Yes” group in the region where the picture was taken, agreed with the explanation) and that last bastion of electoral regularity, Russia, objecting.