Thoughts on the monarchy
Wings Over Scotland had a staff outing to London this weekend. We went on Saturday to avoid the Jubilee crowds and the rain, with great success on both fronts – it turned into a beautiful hot summer’s day by the afternoon, and the city was as deserted as we’ve ever seen it. (The Underground, in particular, was eerily quiet almost everywhere, with empty platforms, tunnels and ticket halls as far as the eye could see. At times it was like a scene from 28 Days Later.)
Compared to the last time we found ourselves in the capital on the eve of a big Royal event, there was surprisingly little activity. Plenty of Union Jack bunting and flags littered the streets, but though we crossed the Thames several times, including by London Bridge and the Millennium Bridge, there were no enthusiasts camped out to stake their prime viewing places for the next day.
(Just by the by, we wouldn’t bother with the Tate Modern at the moment if we were you. The museum’s terrific collection of Soviet-era propaganda posters has been shunted out to make room for a £17 Damien Hirst exhibition, and the Turbine Hall, often home to some amazing works, also currently has nothing to see except a little closed-off shed of Hirst stuff.)
The fact is, London just didn’t seem that bothered. And even 24 hours later on the day itself, the much-hyped grand centrepiece of the entire celebration – the Jubilee flotilla – was distinctly underwhelming, a rag-tag collection of a few score of rowboats and canoes that must have had the 86-year-old lady on the cold, windswept platform wondering if her six decades of remorseless slog had been worth all the effort.
(If you’ll permit us another small digression, we’d like to take a moment out to commend Willie Rennie’s speech in the Holyrood debate on the subject last week. After the First Minister’s necessary statesmanship and Ruth Davidson’s toe-curling toadying – we can’t even remember what Johann Lamont said, but we’re sure it was on behalf of the people of Scotland – Rennie’s thoughtful piece on how for all its privilege he wouldn’t want the monarch’s job was by far the best thing we’ve heard him produce since becoming the Lib Dem leader and, perhaps not coincidentally, pretty closely mirrored our own view.)
So we’re left a little bemused as to why, when Yes Scotland finally launched itself on to the seas of public discourse ten days ago and took the active campaign for independence officially beyond the confines of the SNP, many participants seemed to feel that the most pressing issue needing to be aired wasn’t the economy or defence or welfare, but the continued reign (or otherwise) of Elizabeth I, Queen Of Scots.
We’re going to say it up front: we really don’t give a bee’s bawhair either way about the monarchy. While instinctively socialist and republican, we struggle to think of a single impact or influence that being technically a “subject” rather than a “citizen” has actually had on our life. We’ve never had a hankering for a swanburger, or to drive a flock of sheep across Tower Bridge, or whatever else it is that only the Queen is permitted to do. We’ve been in a few palaces and stately homes over the decades, and we can’t say we’d fancy living in any of them. If a future independent Scotland is to have a head of state, we’re not sure the Queen – widely admired across the world – is a worse candidate than any of the Presidents we might elect.
(Personally we’d have voted for Ally McLeod, were he still alive. Honestly.)
We have no recollection of the Queen ever exercising her theoretical power to interfere in UK democracy. We’ve sometimes wished she had, such as to veto an allegedly-Labour government’s illegal invasion of Iraq that unprecedented millions had taken to the streets to demonstrate against, but she never did. She seems entirely content to have remained merely a ceremonial figurehead for 60 years, and we can’t see that changing any time soon. So at least for as long as Elizabeth I is alive, what practical purpose would be served by sacking her? We rather tend to the feeling that if the UK as we know it is to be no more, sharing a Queen will if nothing else help preserve the social union at what’s likely to be a testing time in cross-border relations.
For the nationalist movement to be indulging itself in factional fighting over the future of the monarchy, then, seems a pointless and destructive pursuit to us, with little to no discernible upside. Not only that, but we suspect that to the public it smacks of arrogance and hubris, like a football manager and his club chairman having a spat in the newspapers over which route through their home city their victory parade will take, two weeks before the cup final.
In truth, then, Wings Over Scotland’s thoughts on the monarchy are that we don’t really have any. We wouldn’t mourn its loss in a republican Scotland for a moment, but on our list of reasons for wanting independence, getting rid of it isn’t in the top 100 either. Is it too much to ask that just for now, we all focus on securing the right to have that decision to make in the first place?
I agree whole-heartedly with the thoughts of the author
The issue I think is that the Queen does indeed have powers, but they are exercised on her behalf by the prime minister and his cabinet, without always going via parliament. This is undemocractic. You elect an MP to represent your area in parliament, then next thing you know he/she’s in the cabinet making decisions on going to war with no mandate to make such decisions from you, and even less of one from people outside your constituency.
Who would exercise these powers in an independent Scotland, and how would they get their mandate? A question that need answered whether we keep the monarchy or not.
“The issue I think is that the Queen does indeed have powers, but they are exercised on her behalf by the prime minister and his cabinet, without always going via parliament. This is undemocractic. You elect an MP to represent your area in parliament, then next thing you know he/she’s in the cabinet making decisions on going to war with no mandate to make such decisions from you”
This isn’t really anything to do with the monarchy, though. In both Westminster and Holyrood, any leader with a majority has a de facto mandate to do anything they like. Taking the Queen away would do nothing to change that.
We absolutely do need a written constitution, preferably one written à la Iceland.
OK. Focus on independence, first, in a broad front a la 1703 & not 1603.
Thereafter, gloves off in the debate to achieve a fully democratic Scotland wherein the debate encompasses all levels of our governance.
“Thereafter, gloves off in the debate to achieve a fully democratic Scotland wherein the debate encompasses all levels of our governance.”
Couldn’t agree more. Everything up for grabs, no exceptions. But first let’s win, or we’re just wasting our time.
As Peter Serafinowitz says, at least she doesn’t treat us like objects:
link to twitter.com
However, you are a citizen, not a subject, and haven’t been since 1981.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The Queen might be happy to be a figurehead, but I am not so sure that Charlie-boy will be able to resist sticking his moronic oar in.
link to blogs.telegraph.co.uk
Altogether a very sensible position – and a simple, but wonderfully expressive photo. Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to attend any street parties this week, and this missive gave me some appreciation of the awe and wonder of it all.
I can tell you that across the pond it is being sold as a great occasion, and an opportunity for the Great Unwashed to show their appreciation for Her Majesty’s dedication to the Nation. Apparently all and sundry are out on their street ‘avin’ a right knees-up. All united in Disneyesque celebration and in our love of Ma’am. It’s all very, cor blimey mate, strike a light and love a duck!
Meanwhile, as the only non-Royalist for five and a half thousand miles, I am losing the will to live.
All I can say about the “celebrations” is thank gawd it was Lizzie baby who was “celebrating”, at the tax payers expense off course, her 60 years on the throne. Thankfully it wasn’t Chuck and Trigger! ( I want to claim this was my invention, unfortunately not. I’ve “borrowed” this from a post on another site. :D)
Funny every time I heart about her being on the throne my single celled brain throws up a certain image. NO it has nothing to do with those over sized seat thingys that most people imagine either!
Right that’s me done. I’ve spent too long on this British monarchy clap trap already!
You’re absolutely right in principle Stu, but that being the case, should the SNP not say ‘no comment’ instead, any time they are asked about these sort of things?
I thought Alex Salmond made a very good point the other day when he reminded the chamber that the 1997 devolution referendum was conducted on the basis that Scotland’s policies in the devolved areas would be decided not by the referendum, but by the elected government which would follow (of course that was an easier pill for Labour to swallow at the time, because they expected a major say in those policies).
If the SNP are going to discuss hypothetical post-indy policies though – and it seems they are – then for the life of me, I cannot understand why they would actively talk about retaining the monarchy. I don’t see the advantage. Would thousands of Rangers fans really oppose independence if it meant losing the Queen? I’m a bit skeptical of that argument.
I find it a strange decision. Why go out of your way to alienate republicans in Scotland? Shouldn’t the SNP be saying ‘ vote for independence, and Scotland can choose whether it has a monarchy or not’. That would be more in keeping with the narrative of Scotland choosing its own destiny etc.
Her royal powers have been used on the Australian parliament and elsewhere in the past. To underestimate her or the potential damage is foolish. Especially as these powers and influence are inherited by whatever random spawn crops up each generation. You should set up a new nation not on the assumption of a granny-aged woman you don’t really know somehow living forever and always behaving as you hope she would at all times.
The world’s biggest dole scrounger shouldn’t be kept on.
I wholly agree with the author. Queen or not, it really won’t matter, if we do not secure independence. Just for the record, I’d also like to agree completely with the assertions made previously, that the referendum is on independence, and NOT about NATO membership, the monarchy, the pound, the Euro, or indeed whatever other fluff the unionist choose to imply. It is only independence which will give Scots the POWER to actually decide the other matters.
So, independence first, then Scotland can choose if it wants to make a change to the monarchy.
I thought that the constant media attempts to make the jubilee sound exciting (and supposedly very popular elsewhere outside London) were on par with the rather feeble efforts to make the Olympic torch run a national spectacle. The rather obvious false sense of excitement and pretence of national enthusiasm in both cases was/is painful to watch.
I’m with RL on this, let’s decide on where the decisions get made first.
Then we’ll make some.
Oh, we’re having a grand old celebration here, village smothered in bunting, marquee on the village green, the entire place out for a good time, the whole nine yards.
Except, the bunting is yellow and maroon, and the Border Riding week happens every year in the first week in June.
This whole ‘you will be happy’ thing is having the opposite effect. I’m a republican, but even folk at work who never usually give an opinion, are sick of the BBC’s forced jingoism.
Just sitting with the EBC news on waiting for my tea and I’m on the verge of reaching for the sick bucket!
In the past I have openly admitted to being a Royalist, a SCOTTISH royalist, NOT A British royalist. By that I mean a supporter of a Scottish Royal family, NOT a supporter of a British Royal family of German descent with links to the SS.
link to facebook.com
However, with ALL the putrid sick provoking s**** that has been on T.V. over the last few days even I am on the verge of becoming a Republican!
Funny you should say that. I was involved in the Queen’s 40th aniversary celebrations 20 years ago, as a minor cog in the entertainment hoopla. I started off thinking this was really great, and by the time of the performance I was so scunnered I was a republican.
@arbroath1320
You want this guy in charge?
link to en.wikipedia.org
I don’t know WHO would become king/queen of an Independent Scotland. I accept your view that Franz Duke of Bavaria may be the person to fill the role of King of Scots in years to come but as the piece says his “claim” comes from his family line back to Charles I. However, there may very well be others out there who have closer links to the Wallace or Bruce lines. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
By continuing with Lizzie we gain time for our senior Scottish historians to do whatever it is that they do in order to come up with, in their historical view, a suitable person to re establish the Scottish monarchy. What MUST be remembered at ALL times is that the Scottish people are sovereign! This means that the Scottish people have the right to remove any king/queen who goes against the wishes of the Scottish people! Just ask James VII (I think) He found out to his “royal” cost what it means to upset the people of Scotland!
“You should set up a new nation not on the assumption of a granny-aged woman you don’t really know somehow living forever”
I’d put quite a lot of money on an independent Scotland holding a referendum on the subject if and when Charles ascends to the throne.
Just a wee aside here.
I’ve just voted on the daily vote over at the Daily Record. I must admit that it was a REALLY tough choice to make, but after some serious soul searching I’ve voted. I hate having to choose from four options. 🙁
Nice to know I was in the MAJORITY! 😀
If you want a laugh the poll is here:
link to dailyrecord.co.uk
The press have gone into overdrive to shout “YOU WILL BE HAPPY!!” and “YOU WILL CELEBRATE!!”. They’ve got the story arc/narrative set up for this and it’s to fawn over the royal dole scrounger and family while pretending everyone in the country to a (wo)man is alternately dancing in the streets and begging and scraping to honour some pensioner they don’t even really know. No matter what happens or how many opt out, the media blitz will be telling you that it was a huge success and everyone loved it, for the media’s opinion matters more than reality. What works for the jubilee propaganda machine will work for the unionist one. It’s depressing to think that reality and truth matters less than the media’s version of it. One wave of the media’s jedi fingers and this won’t be the independence you’re looking for and so another big “NO” in the ballot box on 2014. It’s hard to see such an uphill struggle against every outlet managing it. Feels like some kind of weird Soviet bloc media mirror.
Particularly amusing was seeing the news items about Scotland’s grand contributions to this non event. A whole 100 people apparently turned up to some Edinburgh park event…but that was including tourists and others who happened to be there anyway and brought their own packed lunches. You could get more people turning up for a rural primary school fête, especially if it was being laid on for the public. The fact that they though this was newsworthy shows how low they will go and the extent to which they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep up appearances and their glassy grins on this issue.
There’s no need for any monarch for any democracy. It’s an absurd notion.
There are too many of these distractions from the bigger issues and people allow themselves to be drowned in this white noise instead of educating themselves about the important things or what has gone horribly wrong and is going wrong and who is to blame. The media is not helping with their awful news coverage, jubilee rubbish, olympics and sports distractions. Noam Chomsky describes sports as:
…another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view… it offers people something to pay attention to that’s of no importance… And in fact it’s striking to see the intelligence that’s used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in — they have the most exotic information and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.
So long as the vast majority of people are so easily distracted it will all only get worse forever. It’s impossible for it to be otherwise.
No-one does a festival of naffness quite like England. While it’s unfortunate that we’re still being co-opted into ‘celebrating’ our inferiority to a descendant of murderers, rapists and assorted thieves, we can comfort ourselves with the thought that, unlike those currently being featured waving the butcher’s apron on the BBC, we haven’t been lobotimsed.
Mind you, I did ask the wife to give me a shout when Kylie’s arse came on – that was a nice touch by the organisers I thought, one for the dads – so I can’t claim the moral high ground here, I have watched a bit of it. The ‘royal’ party are, as ever, looking a bit glum. Could Phil the Greeks ‘bladder infection’ be a euphemism for ‘dead’?
Totally agree with everything apart from Ally as head of state; lovely man, but El Presidente of an independent Scotland, I think not. Only one person in line for that job, Big Eck – no contest!
Should the current Queen of Scots actually have a number? You can only be “the First” once someone after you takes the same name and becomes “the Second” surely?
Anyway, my more important point is my perennial disgust at the actual purpose of the British monarchy. It’s simply a gold-plated human shield, obscuring our view of the nonsensical crowds of hangers-on – the Viscount Linleys and Princess Eugenies of the UK – and the ossified government apparatus of the UK. House of Lords, written constitution, over-centralisation, archaic laws still in force…the list is very long.
There are a thousand things needing fixing before considering the nature of the head of state: my personal desire for Scottish independence, is driven by the realisation that the UK is simply incapable of fixing such things.
Appleby says:
June 4, 2012 at 9:11 pm
The press have gone into overdrive to shout “YOU WILL BE HAPPY!!” and “YOU WILL CELEBRATE!!”.
My response…..
OH NO I BLOODY WELL WON’T!
I am Scottish!
I live in Scotland!
I am a FREE INDIVIDUAL!
I have NOT had a frontal lobotomy!
I do NOT do what the BRAIN DEAD of London tell me to do!
FREEDOM!
ALBA gu BRATH!
Just hope all the gormless twats who “enjoyed” themselves over the weekend have read this.
link to apps.facebook.com
Amazing!
Homeless and unemployed people are bussed INTO London to work as “stewards.”
Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government’s Work Programme.
Some one please remind me again,Do we live in a Democracy OR a Communist state? I am currently getting VERY confused!
When the Queen dies I suspect the media spinning and telling us all we love Chuck and Trigger ( copyright me….!!!) will go into overdrive.
I have nothing against the Queen per se, other than her arrogance in 1997, but I think the hangers on within the Establishment could not survive in their positions unless she was in charge and her family and friends ran the House of lords.
I think you are right redcliffe. If we all thought that the current level of royal “spinning” was nauseating it is nothing compared to what we will be confronted when we are faced with the Chuck and Trigger show.
Please accept my apologies for failing to copyright you in any previous posts. I remembered the phrase but couldn’t remember who said it. Just wish I’d thought of it, BRILLIANT! 😀
I remember now! 😀
While I find the notion of having a Queen of Scots quaint, may I remind you all of the terms of the Treaty of Union, article 1 of which states: “That the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall, upon the Ist day of May next ensuing the date hereof [1707], and for ever after, be united into one kingdom by the name of Great Britain”. For this reason, I don’t really see that it is possible to maintain the status quo after independence. The closest we can get is re-establishing the Kingdom of Scotland – although personally I see no point in regressing to hereditary privilege. The point is, as long as we are an appendage of the British state, it is simply not our decision to make.
Why not have a ‘Boss Lottery’ every year? A name is drawn out of the hat every 6 months, and Betty and her brood swap places with that family for the 6 months.
BBC could cover it. I’m sure it would be entertaining.
Can you imagine the scene where Phil trys to explain he isn’t an asylum seeker from Easterhouse, and William gets caught on CCTV lifting a bottle of Pimms from Tesco.
Meanwhile, Joe MacPublic could be filmed having his wrist repaired due to too much waving.
While having been a republican since the age of about 6 I am with Rev Stu on this one. Later.
One thing that the whole nonsense does bring up is the question of checks and balances in the putative Scottish Constitution.
The president of Iceland, being elected, had sufficient legitimacy to veto legislation on passing the debts of private companies to the Icelandic public. And the rest is history. Would a hereditary monarch have that legitimacy? I would say no.
Or (and perhaps more constructively in the medium term) would as Senate of the Regions provide a balance, and revising chamber. Came across this while reminding National Collective to be careful with their cartoons. See comments
link to facebook.com
PS Anybody want to bet on the coronation of King William being in, say, 2014?
I have been rather depressed by what I’ve seen on my TV screen the past few days. My misanthropic tendencies have been at an all time high, as my screen filled with pathetic little creatures, no better than maggots, waving their little flags like the obedient, uncritical and ignorant little turds that they are. It’s easy to see why the planet is fucked when you’re witness to the worst traits of the human race, bowing down to a fellow maggot just because a tribe of maggots many centuries ago decided one of her ancestors was the king of all maggots. We may have built flying machines and mapped the human genome, but people’s obsession with all things shiny show you we’ve not evolved since the day we accidentally started a fire.
So it’s been rather difficult to retain my “independence first, republic second” stance, but I think I’ve just about managed it. I don’t think getting rid of the monarchy will actually increase the level of democracy in the country – all we’d actually be doing is electing the person we revere like an imitation demi-god, rather than leaving it up to biology – but it will hopefully lead to fewer outbursts of pathetic group emotion. My disgust towards the union jack has never been so great, though. I want to erect one in my front garden every day and set fire to it.
DD – if there was a ‘like’ button on Wings I would be clicking away on it!
Well, you could always click some of the “Like” buttons at the bottom of every post. Those really help grow the readership.
Weird,
I tried to add to my post above.
All I did was copy a comment from another web site and asked for comments on it.
It is then “marked as spam”.
Is this normal?
Hmmm.
This is what the chap said:
”
What people tend to forget in this debate is that we haven’t had a monarch (in the absolute, divine right to rule sense) for 800-odd years. Those who say that Liz is OK, but look what George VII has said what he’ll do, are forgetting political and legal realities. The House of Commons has a history of “losing” monarchs who overstep the mark – some with extreme prejudice, others with less – and replacing them with more congenial candidates.
An elective presidency would have apparent democratic legitimacy that the present constitutional monarchy cannot take for granted. Within that legitimacy would lie the seeds of conflict between the presidency and the legislature. To take just one example; if the President has the current powers of the monarchy, s/he would have the powers to decide both whom to appoint Prime Minister, and the power to refuse Royal Assent to legislation. In both cases, the constitutional monarch, by convention, accepts the will of Parliament. An elected president could in a close Parliament, consistently with his or her democratic mandate, insist on their own choice of PM and make it stick by threatening to block the legislation of any alternative. Is that more or less democratic than the current position; and is it likely to be more or less effective as a system of government?
I am not wedded to monarchy; it may however be the least of current potential evils. Certainly any presidential replacement would have to be very carefully thought through, and those who assert the supremacy of Parliament would have to accept that that would be reduced by any elected presidency.”
I do not know whether he is right or not, just asking.
I don’t really want to get into the whole monarchy/republic argument other than to put one scenario under a republic.
Alex Salmond becomes First Minister.
Johann Lamont becomes president.
This may only be a theory at the moment, but it is one I am struggling desperately to dispose of.
It’s never going to be any worse when we get rid of the royal spongers. Even if it’s someone you don’t like in charge, it is only for a little while and there’s an easy in-built way of changing it.
Does anyone know a source of cheap radios?
I’m a manual worker, and like to have a radio playing in the background as i work.
Usually it is on Radio Scotland. I know.
Anyway, all this jubilee/olympics/how great it is to be british is causing problems.
Either i’m developing a strange mental illness that causes me to throw spanners at radios, or modern radios aren’t well built.
Maybe i should buy a better sick bucket, and change the station?
Found this little ditty over on Caledonian Mercury. Thought it might help soothe the pain of any London royalists reading this blog. 😀
link to caledonianmercury.com
ENJOY! 😀
I’m THIS close to deleting that post on principle…
Apologies for upsetting you Rev. 🙁
Does the author still feel this way? What about the contention that the devolved authority of the crown gives governments undemocratic powers such as the power to go to war? Shouldn’t power come directly from the people and only the people instead of having devolved people-power sitting alongside devolved crown-power?