The lie at the heart of the UK constitution

headofstate
During the independence referendum, those who suggested that David Cameron’s government had intervened with the monarchy in order to get the Queen to make a statement favourable to the Better Together campaign were dismissed as cranks, conspiracy theorists, and crackpots.

That’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!! We were told in capital letters with multiple exclamation marks because if you’re going to affect to be outraged you may as well go the whole hog. The Queen is NEUTRAL!!!! That’s what being British is all about and the fact you can even think to the contrary that shows that you are a vile untrustworthy person who can never, NEVER, aspire to the heights of moral probity of the British state and you’d put Scottish democracy at risk. How very DARE you vile cybernats impugn the neutrality of Her Majesty who has never, NEVER, had a political thought in her entire life. Or indeed any thought that didn’t involve horses or protecting her second son from accusations of being pally with a paedophile. Well this is precisely the kind of conspiracy theorising we can expect from these vile cybernats with their evil ways and horrible tendency to throw an egg, an egg I tell you, at that nice Mr Jim Murphy. Vote yes and it’s one step to the end of civilisation.

Yet now we know that is precisely what happened. In his expensively written memoirs, coming soon to a Bargain Bookshop near you with a £1 sticker on the cover, former Prime Minister David Cameron admits that he did indeed intervene with the monarchy after he was panicked by an opinion poll which showed that support for independence was edging ahead. He didn’t want to go down in history as the man who’d lost Scotland. No indeed. Instead because of his Brexit referendum he’ll go down in history as the man who lost the entire UK.

What Liz did in response was to tell a random royalist punter stood stanning outside Crathie kirk that people ought to “think very carefully” before casting their vote in the referendum. This was taken in the spirit in which it was intended by the BBC and the rest of the British media. It was the sort of “you need to think very carefully about that” you’d get from yer maw just after a teenager told her they intended to get a facial tattoo and she knew that if she’d said “For god’s sake don’t be such an idiot” that they’d go ahead and do it just to annoy her. This is because even though the form of the words “think very carefully” are in themselves studiously neutral, no one has ever been told to “think very carefully” by another person who shares their belief that they are doing the right thing.

That’s exactly how the Queen’s words were presented by the media. She knew that is what they’d do. There was no intervention from the palace to clarify that the Queen meant that both sides in the debate needed to think very carefully, or that what she meant was that she hoped that both sides in the debate should carefully consider their positions. She was quite happy that her wee intervention should be used as an aid to the Better Together campaign. That’s always exactly how it was intended.

Today we’re hearing reports from the palace that the Queen is channelling Victoria and is not amused by Cameron’s none too surprising revelation. Apparently there is “an amount of displeasure” about the former Prime Minister’s admission. I’ll bet there is, quite a large amount too. But it’s not displeasure at having intervened in a democratic debate, it’s displeasure at having been found out. Coming as it does on top of the crisis provoked by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson’s decision to abuse the royal prerogative and prorogue Parliament in order to escape democratic scrutiny, it’s a very bad time for anyone to be shining the spotlight on the monarch’s true role in politics.

We have been told this week that Lyin’ Bastert Johnson lied to the Queen in order to prorogue Parliament, when in fact she was well aware of what he was doing and why he wanted Parliament to be prorogued. The dugs in the street knew the real reason. All of Parliament knew the real reason. The judges in the highest court of Scotland knew the real reason. Everyone knew the real reason. It is ludicrous to suggest that a monarch who has been dealing with Prime Ministers since the early 1950s didn’t know the real reason too. Indeed there have even been rumours that the Palace planned the entire affair with Downing Street.

This is far bigger than the decision of a deeply conservative member of the British establishment, indeed the very figurehead of the British establishment, to intervene against Scottish independence. That development was always entirely predictable, and she will do exactly the same the next time round. All the more so because the next time round the British state will not be going into the independence referendum campaign with the same casual arrogance that it’s going to win handsomely that it had early in 2014. There will most certainly be some weasly worded intervention from the monarch, carefully phrased in order to be deniable. However the next time round we will be able to assert that there has been political intervention citing David Cameron as evidence that opponents of independence had done it before. We will no longer be able to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists for making the allegation.

What this is really about however, is the systematic weakness of the collection of laws, conventions, traditions, and precedent which together comprise the British constitution. An unelected head of state is not and cannot be any sort of guarantee against undemocratic actions on the part of the executive. An elected head of state would have told Lyin’ Bastert Johnson where to get off if he had approached her or him with the proposal to prorogue Parliament for such nakedly political, anti-democratic, and self-serving ends. Instead of placing the protection of democracy as its paramount concern, Buckingham Palace had as its priority the minimisation of damage to the Queen’s reputation.

It is one thing when an extremely expensively funded head of state has no political influence and is merely a decorative figurehead. It is quite another when that head of state does have political influence, but those of us who pay for the privileges and luxurious lifestyle of her and her family are not allowed to know what that influence is. Then the monarch shifts from being merely a massive waste of public money, to becoming a massive waste of public money and a danger to democracy. The real scandal here is not that Lyin’ Bastert Johnson lied to the Queen, it’s that the entire British constitution rests upon the lie that the head of state has no political influence.


newbook My new book has just been published by Vagabond Voices. Containing the best articles from The National from 2016 to date. Weighing in at over 350 pages, this is the biggest and best anthology of Wee Gingerisms yet. This collection of pieces covers the increasingly demented Brexit years, and the continuing presence and strength of Scotland’s independence movement.

You can order the book directly from the publisher. Ordering directly means that postage is free. You can order here –
https://www.vagabondvoices.co.uk/rants/barking-up-the-right-tree-2019

You can also order a book directly from me. The book costs £11.95 and P&P is an additional £3.50, making a total of £15.45. To order just make a Paypal payment to weegingerbook@yahoo.com, or alternatively use the DONATE button below. Please make sure to give me your postal address when ordering. Orders to be sent outwith the UK will incur extra postage costs, please email me for details. If you can’t use Paypal, or prefer an alternative payment method, please email weegingerbook@yahoo.com


You can help to support this blog with a Paypal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button. If you don’t have a Paypal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.
Donate Button

If you have trouble using the button, or you prefer not to use Paypal, you can donate or purchase a t-shirt or map by making a payment directly into my bank account, or by sending a cheque or postal order. If you’d like to donate by one of these methods, please email me at weegingerbook@yahoo.com and I will send the necessary information.

Please also use this email address if you would like the dug and me to come along to your local group for a talk.

GINGER2croppedGaelic maps of Scotland are available for £15 each, plus £7 P&P within the UK for up to three maps. T-shirts are £12 each, and are available in small, medium, large, XL and XXL sizes. P&P is £5 for up to three t-shirts. My books, the Collected Yaps Vols 1 to 4 are available for £11 each. P&P is £4 for up to two books. Payment can be made via Paypal.

46 comments on “The lie at the heart of the UK constitution

  1. Mark Russell says:

    Aye. Let’s not forget Prince Andrew at this moment too. P45’s needed.

  2. Grouser says:

    The Monarchy is the foundation of the wealthy and privileged Establishment that runs the UK. It pretends to be above politics but it is deeply engaged in maintaining the Establishment. It gives the example of retreating to its Scottish playground every year to wear the kilt and pose for photographs.

    They are surrounded and supported by those who have vast estates and great wealth to protect. They system has worked beautifully for them for centuries.

    They tease the wannabees by offering the chance to climb up the ladder a little with honours to show off proudly to their friends. They have duped tens of thousands of the population to view them as special beings who should be obeyed and respected, despite the example of their lives giving living proof of the opposite.

    The Monarchy is a plague and actively works against the good of the majority of the population. It is time it took its place in history.

    It would do Scotland the world of good to get rid of the Monarchy and introduce land reform to remove large estates from hereditary landowners.

  3. Craig P says:

    “Think very carefully.”

    There was a poll published in the lead up to the referendum that showed that people who had taken the time to study the issue and weigh up the pros and cons were more likely to vote Yes.

  4. Irene Danks says:

    Any time I read the comments and see the florid coupons of the “loyalist” brigade, I have to admit to feeling bloody sorry for the auld yin. In the same way that, should God actually exist, she must surely bang her head against a wall when her more lunatic zealots do their more insane frothing.
    But, in HRH’s case, I imagine the loyalty goes but one way!

  5. Bob Lamont says:

    Whilst I agree that the rich network includes aul Lizzie, and there was undoubtedly a plausibly deniable word pre-arranged, what I don’t get is the game that is being played now with the “We are not amused” line at this time…
    Dodgy Dave’s Diary (as a certain MP might call it) draft would have been reviewed months before publication by all the great and good involved, even Gove who is neither would have slapped an injunction on if he felt any slight, and as for Lizzie, Phil the Greek would have been sent round to drive him somewhere for a brick wall sandwich… Sorry, but It stinks of a cosy stitchup, but if not to boost Cameroon’s sales what are they playing at ?
    Taking the heat off Doris by diverting attention from the SC case? Preparing for an HRH intervention over Doris? Castration of Cummings by removing his internet link?
    There’s more to this..

    • Legerwood says:

      I think I would agree with you there.

      Divert attention from SC? Garner sympathy for Liz? And anything else that is not going the Establishment’s way.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      Ok, but “anything else that is not going the Establishment’s way” rather limits the options to several million on current form, and that without that devious SOB Cummings’ influence…
      Otherwise I agree it is a theatre for the SC case…

    • Terry callachan says:

      I think the establishment cannot allow the Supreme Court to interfere with their Westminster parliament , if the SC was allowed to interfere with its present freedoms brexit and so many other things would not get a chance everything would be taken to court.
      They don’t want all this court stuff oh no keep it just the way it is that’s what they want and I reckon that’s what they will get.

      They will however have to be seen to be doing something if they want people to swallow “ its politics not legal so we can’t change it” .

      What could they change that wouldn’t really change much but would appear to many many folk to be a big change ?
      The Queens involvement in government of “the country” of course

      She really only just does what her advisers tell her to do which is what has already been agreed between the advisers and the government, where’s that rubber stamp ? They only have the one you know and they use it for everything not that she’s ever seen it or even touched it.

      After the SC fob everyone off with the its political not legal decision they will say as they did last time that something will have to de done to separate government executive royalty properly and as royalty is the only one that is actually meaningless it will be said to be in for more restrictions when in fact we know that everything they do is just a big kid on anyway .
      Restrictions will probably see the rubber stamp given to a different adviser who will now be given a silly uniform and an office and staff just to make it look as something new and important has happened.

      Cameron’s book continues the lie that the Queens role is something important but it’s not it’s all for show.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      You could well be right Terry, something will have to be done right enough, Indy2 would be a bloody good start

    • Petra says:

      ”There’s more to this.” Totally agree Bob. Her last ”intervention” was supposed to be covert. Maybe this is coming out now, planned as Indyref2 is rearing its head, to let everyone know in a more overt way that she’s totally against it. Hoping that this will influence the Scottish monarchy lovers and to h*ll with those, like us, that they can’t influence anyway.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        Indeed, or as Terry touched on, perhaps to imply retrospectively it was Scots’ loyalty to the Crown which rescued the Union rather than the litany of lies, Operation Fear, the Vow etc., viz rewriting history, but for which audience? Most Scots wouldn’t and don’t give a toss, but to the more “loyal” in England it may have greater significance, but even then to what end?
        The point remains, when tradition dictates no mention of Crown interaction, this is not a revelation but pre-planned theatrics…

  6. […] Wee Ginger Dug The lie at the heart of the UK constitution During the independence referendum, those who suggested that David Cameron’s […]

  7. Sheila McIntosh Rae says:

    It is time for a modernisation of the whole elitist entitlement of the outdated British system. The costs of such pomp and circumstance is deplorable in Austerity U.K. The Westminster parliament with their ridiculous jeering, insults befitting only of badly behaved children compared to the decorum of our Holyrood Parliament.
    Scotland needs a constitution that reflects true democracy. Saor Alba Gu Brath🌿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🌿

  8. Luigi says:

    I think that HM should “think very carefully” the next tine she intervenes in a Scottish independence referendum. 🙂

  9. Alba woman says:

    The Queen sat in Balmoral all during the indie campaign…

    the union flag flew from Rutherglen Town Hall for the duration of the campaign despite requests for a temporary removal….This flag flies 365 days a year…

    The Orange Order ran stalls in my area with the tacit approval and cover of the Better Together lot

    The whole campaign stank of the Scottish establishment happily working with the other lot in London

    I think the Yes campaign did exceedingly well despite the very real constraints of Better Together…

    A brilliant piece of writing WGD

  10. Contrary says:

    You know, on the face of it, if we assume that the way of things are as we are told, then the Queen should have very little interest in whether Scotland is independent or not. After all, the world is jam-packed with Commonwealth countries and crown dependencies – she would only need to add another to her list.

    So, conspiracy theories aside – although I do like to point out to people that the conspiracies themselves do actually exist, it is just the theories that are madey-up – what has been revealed by Cameron’s exposé is that maybe things aren’t as they seem, and she does have a stake in the matter. A definite mistake on her part.

    I have strong views about the British establishment, and any form of supposed authority that comes by dint of birth rather than ability, and the farcical political structures we have to endure. But, royalty is a fight for another day.

    Independence is a priority, and as long as we do not try to mash that aim up with other conditions, like royalty (or lack of), it should be achievable. The queen has nothing to gain or lose, on the face of it, by Scotland getting independence so should not interfere – if she did, then it would imply dark forces at work and nasty little hidden agendas related to the royal family – so if we ignore them, they should ignore us – in theory. We have enough to be dealing with (Ho, strange how the sectarian violence has suddenly become such a problem again. Strange indeed), and will be having more to deal with, we don’t need to divide people’s loyalty by suggesting a republic along with independence before the latter is achieved. I will be side-stepping any queen debates, it’s not something worth forgoing independence for.

    • Anne Martin says:

      I agree Contrary, independence first and foremost. Questions like the monarchy, joining the EU or EFTA, voting system in the Scottish Parliament, etc are all for another day. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

    • Terry callachan says:

      You just forgot to sidestep a Queen debate.
      I know I know it’s difficult to do so all the time.

      The thing is I have to say I think you are wrong that the queen has nothing to win or lose with Scottish independence .
      History shows otherwise.
      Royalty and parliament in modern times aid and abet one another they defend each other when attacked or going through a public storm of discontent, they are used as a method of quieting large groups of the population , a large group who love the royals is quieted by parliament announcing grand ceremony tours overseas everyone loves our royals etc and how much the royals bring into the country in terms of tourism oh and of course babies.

      The royals quiet the population when discontent with government rises by by adhering to government ploys to change laws as we are seeing right now and the royals never criticise even the worst government actions they always always support government giving us the impression that if the queen is supporting it then it must be necessary , for the good of “ the country” .

      • Contrary says:

        You are missing my point Terry – the image they want to convey – now, not in history – that popular support the monarchy requires to stay in existence, requires them to maintain certain positions, including political neutrality – which is why this revelation is so important, but is also a good thing in that they should be very careful with what they say in future – so I am saying, it does not matter what is actually the case, if we accept the image they are trying to convey, they are restricted by their own rules. What the media does is a different matter altogether. It’s just one less thing to worry about, if you make it so you don’t need to worry about it.

        Side-stepping the queen debate *in the real world*, and not commenting on whether or not there should be a monarchy at all.

  11. Chicmac says:

    To, again, perhaps be more than fair to David Cameron, as I have been in the past, I think he saw the clear and present existential danger to democracy in the UK from an ultra right wing cabal working relentlessly in the background towards a totalitarian Britain.

    My instinct is that he is not in the same psychotic mould as the cabal despite being put through the same conditioning process. He is still remains mainly human, IMO.

    I think he saw the Brexit referendum as an opportunity to put the monsters back in their box, at least for some years.

    He failed, but part of me commends him for the attempt.

  12. Petra says:

    The Queen is the beating heart of the nidorous Establishment, that pillar of power, and how anyone with half a brain can’t see what’s going on and supports this vast network of leeches, powerful groups of political, religious (Church of England), social and business elites, that permeates its way into every aspect of our lives, is beyond me. The name of the game is to amass great wealth, at our expense, and it’s key objective is absolutely threatened with the dissolution of the Union. So, imo, she would more than likely be behind more that just making a so-called off the cuff, benign comment to an ordinary wee wummin? at Crathie Church followed by purring down the phone. We no doubt don’t know the half of what goes on and never will.

    An interesting article on Queenie and Indyref1.

    https://t.co/AbBPgLe35L

    • Tol says:

      Anyone who sees the Monarch as a “kindly old lady” are beyond naive. I can’t decide if the entire UK is stuck in Plato’s cave….or just has an “Invisible Gorilla Problem” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

      Once you realise, the Queen is the head of a secretive family business that has plundered global wealth for centuries and makes a countries subject to her family interest – the wool falls from your eyes.

      If a head of State is really just a bigger italian marfia boss where they are the country – then the UK has it nailed. If on the other hand, a Head of State serves the country – the UK is not even in the ball park.

      Once you see it you can’t un-see it

      • Luigi says:

        Indeed. The media is trying to portray HM as an innocent bystander rather than the active participant she was. A willing accomplice who would do anything to preserve her position.

    • Terry callachan says:

      Well said

  13. ScotsCanuck says:

    … I’ll just add that Lizzie still has a reasonable appeal to a lot o’ folk in Scotland, even some Nationalists (I’m a Republican) …. because the Establishment has airbrushed this picture of the Matriarch of the Nation (which one ?) … but think on, what is the scenario when she “falls aff her perch” and “Chick” becomes King ? …. who the Hell is going to buy into that shit show ? …. already several Commonwealth Countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand …) are asking why a “Foreign” Country have an “Imposed” Head of State …. if they’re asking why aren’t we ?

  14. Ian says:

    Someone nailed it when they wrote that the main purpose of the monarchy is to glamorise inequality and backwardness. Too true and without addressing this, the UK will never drag itself away from the dead weight of it. ‘Public’ schools are another huge part of this overall problem, adding a large dose of childishness and amateurism into the mix.

  15. Macart says:

    Two referendums won on the back of deception, fibbery, misrepresentation, intimidation and… arrogance. The arrogance of a political and social establishment.

    Pretty certain they’re not going to like the bit where those they have manipulated and deceived get grumpy.

    Doesn’t matter how many times it’s been gotten away with historically. With each abuse of position or responsibility, you’re storing a little bit more bad Karma for an inevitable conclusion.

    • Mark Russell says:

      For sure, Sam. There’s that many nails going into the coffin lid of the British Establishment right now, it’ll need a crane to lay it to rest! Hasn’t Brexit been wonderful??

      The tide has turned.

  16. The English Parliament is sovereign, not the monarchy. The ENGLISH Westminster Parliament is sovereign because of their claim of rights. this was confirmed on 4th July 2018, at the same time as the Scottish Peoples claim of rights that they are sovereign, not the monarchy. The English Parliament was not put into abeyance like the Scottish Parliament which was reconvened when devolution occurred. When the prime minister goes to see the Queen is to tell her, not ask her

  17. JMD says:

    I would so dearly love to see the Benefit Scrounger In Chief getting her arse booted out of Scotland but for the time being (if I had a platform which I don’t) I’d keep schtum about that as it’s clearly a matter that can only be dealt with one way or another POST indy..

    Got to get there first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s