At what point, constitutionally speaking, would the queen get involved? Does she have a duty to step in and prevent civil war or something? I know she stays completely neutral but as head of state surely there must be a point at which she says something, or does she literally do nothing at any point until being evacuated in her private helicopter to the South of France or somewhere?
What is to say she isn't already ? Bear in mind Theresa May has to spend an hour a week briefing the Queen on everything. These briefings are never minuted, and the Queens reaction and comments are never aired. I've already suspected Theresa May is getting some pretty solid advice from somewhere at times - it might explain her odder decisions.
I image the Queen/Crown would be forced to become less passive if/when the integrity of the Union is mentioned. Much as the Tories won't mention it, it's worth reminding everyone that The Queen of England and Wales is also the Queen of Scotland. She doesn't rule Scotland because she rules England. She rules Scotland because she rules Scotland.
All of which would make for an interesting constitutional debate were the Scottish parliament to attempt to open a direct dialogue with their Monarch.
Preserving the Union appears somewhere in the coronation oath - and it's a universally acknowledged fact that HMQ takes that oath deathly seriously.
Moving away, I can't see the Queen being overjoyed at being dragged into a debate over the future of the Union as a result of "her governments" moronic bungling. I notice talk of Prince Phillip upthread. I suspect if he were allowed, he would have some very choice words about the tsunami of incompetence currently being paraded around the worlds press.