Wee Eck likes to reassure us that a separate Scotland would keep the Queen as head of state.
Hmmm. Let us not forget that the Irish Free State was founded as a Dominion of the Commonwealth with the King as head of state. That didn't last long once the republicans gained the upper hand after independence. And the SNP certainly has its republican faction - Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill, Roseanna Cunningham and Stewart Stevenson were all members of the '79 Group, the self-proclaimed "Scottish Socialist Republican" SNP splinter group. Roseanna Cunningham certainly still holds republican views - how many others are keeping quiet about theirs until their time comes? And the official student wing of the SNP, the obvious breeding ground for future SNP politicians, is expressly republican.
And another thing... Salmond is being either ignorant or disingenuous about a separate Scotland "not leaving the UK". Prior to the 1707 Treaty of Union, there was no "united kingdom", either small u, small k, or capital U, capital K. There was a Kingdom of England and a Kingdom of Scotland, and they just happened to have the same monarch. In fact, the term United Kingdom only became official with the union with Ireland in 1801. So, no, Alex, a separate Scotland would be leaving the UK and we damn well should be reminded of this on our voting papers when the day comes.
Something as historically consequent as declaring Scotland a Republic could only take place after a specific referendum on the subject. Surely, as a democrat, you could have no objection to the Scottish people expressing their will, whichever way their decision went? In any case, even if Scotland became a republic, the Queen would still be Head of the Commonwealth - it would make no sense economically or politically for Scotland to leave the Commonwealth - and we would therefore, presumably, get our fair share of State Visits, as well as the Royal Family's frequent informal visits to Balmoral and Holyrood.
ReplyDeleteIf we retain the Monarchy, economically, it looks like a win-win situation. We would receive all the attendant international publicity that draws tourists to these shores without having to pay the costs of the Civil List. As a Commonwealth Realm, we would incur only the expenses incurred for each official visit/event (security, transportation, venue, etc.) for which funds would be set aside through the ordinary legislative budgeting process. Members of the Royal Family draw enormous media coverage in the form of photographic, written, and televised commentary on all aspects of their lives, and they DO spend quite a lot of time in Scotland. Given that the title of "Mary, Queen of Scots" has attracted so much world interest and tourism, the revival of the the "Queen of Scots" title would also be of benefit to the economy. Tours of those of the present and former Royal Residences open to the public could be profitably organised - Cadzow Castle, Dunfermline Palace, Falkland Palace, Holyrood Palace, Linlithgow Palace, Castle of Mey, and Stirling Castle. All in all, the Royal Family could be of distinct economic benefit to the nation, and canny Scots would probably take that into account. My objections to the Royal Family are based on the kow-towing ritual worship of them by such as yourself, which, in my opinion, degrades human dignity. However, I am but one voice among many and democracy will prevail (also an exercise in human dignity). And I wouldn't be so sure about Alex Salmond's Republican tendencies. Lots of things change as you get older, and he and the Queen appear pretty chummy these days, appearing together in public at their point of mutual interest: the gee-gees.