THE death of Queen Elizabeth was an apolitical event, or so we were constantly told.
Any hint of a suggestion that the newly-crowned Charles was presiding over a divided kingdom was panned by sources “close to” figures such as Gordon Brown and Scottish Secretary Alister Jack.
Those same sources were of course silent when BBC correspondent Nicholas Witchell claimed it was “very important to her [the Queen] to feel that the United Kingdom would remain the United Kingdom”.
And the UK media's reports of Charles’s joyous accession to the throne were strangely empty of views which didn’t fit that narrative.
It seems that politicising the monarch’s death is actually all good, as long as it’s to bolster support for the Union.
Now, one Tory MSP seems to have confirmed that suspicion.
Speaking to Holyrood magazine anonymously, the “senior Scottish Conservative” suggested that "the Queen, in failing health, had travelled to Balmoral in the knowledge that she would die there, and with the intention of bolstering support for the Union”.
Whether this crass suggestion was actually on the Queen’s mind when she travelled to Balmoral is obviously unknown. The late monarch had been convinced to speak against Scottish independence ahead of the 2014 referendum.
But the idea that it will have any impact is likely only wishful thinking on the part of that (unsurprisingly anonymous) Tory MSP.
Dr Alan MacDonald, a senior lecturer in Scottish history from the University of Dundee, also told Holyrood magazine: “The fact that there was an outpouring of affection for the Queen doesn’t mean there was an outpouring of support for the Union …
"It would be rash to suppose that a snapshot of public opinion in the period between the death and funeral of someone is an indicator of a long-term change.
“Changes like that don’t happen overnight. If you’re expecting to wake up and find a world transformed, that’s rather absurd.”
Absurdity from the Scottish Tories? Surely not.
