Monday, 06 August 2012 20:00
46 Comments
By Mark McNaught
The British Monarchy is so ingrained in the mythology of the United Kingdom, that it is often difficult for many to envision what alternatives exist as head of state for an independent Scotland.
It is of course, a taboo subject, being as the Monarchy is synonymous with the UK, and is held to be a key source of legitimacy of the British state.
Public debate about the role of the Monarchy in an independent Scotland is limited in the broader press, because of the passions it engenders and the institutional wrath such discussion can incur.
However, as the debate continues on the constitutional implications of a referendum in Scotland, the future role of the Monarchy is not something which can be locked in a rhetorical safe. Debate should begin as to whether the Monarchy should be maintained as the head of state in an Independent Scotland, or what alternatives are possible.
The case for maintaining the Monarchy is important to consider, not least because the success of a referendum could hinge on this question. No Scot has known a different constitutional arrangement.
The Monarchy is held to be a source of stability, above the fray of partisan politics, binding the British together over generations. There are undoubtedly many Scots who may support independence, but who maintain a deep affection for the Monarchy and feel that Queen Elizabeth has fulfilled her role as head of state with integrity and deep commitment.
The power of the Monarchy is largely symbolic, so Scots should have nothing to fear in terms of it intruding itself into Scottish politics. Countenancing a new form head of state could harm the independence referendum, so the Scots should just keep the Monarchy.
Although this perspective is valid, it could also be argued that Monarchy is antithetical to an egalitarian and meritocratic Scotland. Maintaining the Monarchy indefinitely in an independent Scotland would further perpetuate the myth that there are those who deserve exalted status because they are born into it, not because they earned it.
What does this say to citizens both of the current UK, and the generations to come in an independent Scotland? The message seems to be “you can never be head of state because you were born to the wrong parents”. If an independent Scotland aspires to be a truly egalitarian society, maintaining the Monarchy would be an anachronistic refutation.
There are many other arguments supporting each side, which engender passionate debate which could very well swing the results of the referendum one way or another. As someone who deeply respects those who cannot imagine Queen Elizabeth not being their sovereign, particularly those of the WWII generation, yet seeing Monarchy as incompatible with a meritocratic independent Scotland, I propose the following.
Include in a written Scottish constitution the Monarchy as the head of state, with present constitutional powers it enjoys. However, when Queen Elizabeth II comes to the end of her reign, the Scottish people are to be consulted in a referendum as to whether her successor should become head of state, or whether it should be chosen by the people, what form it should take, to be codified in a constitutional amendment.
This would both assure that Elizabeth will always be the Queen for those who treasure her status, and would vote ‘no’ for that reason, yet assure that in Independent Scotland will not be forever shackled to the Monarchy. It may well be that there is broad popular support for Charles or William to become Scots’ sovereign, but there should be a vote. In the infamous ‘communist peasant’ scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, King Arthur boldly declared “you don’t vote for Kings”. Scots can break with that precedent.
The question of the head of state in an independent Scotland is not something which can be put off until after a referendum. It should be debated and codified in a written Constitution to be ratified in the event of a ‘yes’ referendum vote, so that Scots have all the information necessary to make a clear choice on their constitutional future.
This will compel the Unionists to present their arguments in favor of maintaining the Monarchy, then let the reasoning stand or fall on its merits.
Scots deserve nothing less.
Mark McNaught is an Associate Professor of US civilisation at the University of Rennes 2 France, and teaches US constitutional law at Sciences-Po Paris. His newly released book 'Reflections on Conservative Politics in the United Kingdom and the United States: Still Soul Mates?' is available through Lexington Books.
Comments
#
2012-08-06 20:26
Not a bad idea because I suspect many Scots will be far less enthusiastic when it comes to having a King Charles.
#
2012-08-07 10:57
Firstly, I don't think there is any need whatsoever to discuss the issues of monarchy v republicanism yet. The issue is the statehood of the nation, not the political constitution. That can be discussed after the referendum
However, I find myself astounded by the amount of ignorance there is on this subject. The monarch is not merely symbolic and certainly isn't born into a life of ease!
The function of our monarch is to be schooled in everything there is to know about our nation, to become an unchallengeable life-long expert in constitutional matters far beyond what any elected representative could possibly achieve.
The monarch's function is the preservation and protection of the nation, which means that should our elected representatives conspire against the people, the monarch has the power (via primary control of the military) to oust those responsible.
The monarch is apolitical, a cultural and constitutional representative of the people above parliament. Essentially a guarantor of security.
As for the perception that the monarch lives a life of luxury, I ask any of you, who REALLY would want to live a life chained to the demands and duties of a state? Have their itinerary dictated to them day-in day-out? Take ONLY holidays and the like only on service approval, never act spontaneously or speak out of turn lest there is a political storm?
I don't care how many palaces, crowns and silks they offered me, I wouldn't want such a LIFE (not a job, a life)! And remember... the monarch doesn't exactly get much of a choice either... they are born into it whether they like it or not!
However, I do take issue with all the "hangers on" and the peerage system. This does need reform and I wholeheartedly support the Lib Dem's efforts in this area.
Now the question of WHO should be the monarch arises. Personally, I'd have no objection to the return of the direct Stewart lineage to Scotland, the renouncement of the laws of Tanistry that brought the Saxe-Coburgs to the throne. But I am open to either situation.
Republicans cannot answer the above points of fact, they have no match for the expertise held in a monarch or the over-lordship of the military and security of the nation to an apolitical power. Remember, republicanism brings despots to power and modern democracy has revolutionised the monarchical system.
Yes revision is required, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... consider a broader range of possibilities and consequences.
However, I find myself astounded by the amount of ignorance there is on this subject. The monarch is not merely symbolic and certainly isn't born into a life of ease!
The function of our monarch is to be schooled in everything there is to know about our nation, to become an unchallengeable life-long expert in constitutional matters far beyond what any elected representative could possibly achieve.
The monarch's function is the preservation and protection of the nation, which means that should our elected representatives conspire against the people, the monarch has the power (via primary control of the military) to oust those responsible.
The monarch is apolitical, a cultural and constitutional representative of the people above parliament. Essentially a guarantor of security.
As for the perception that the monarch lives a life of luxury, I ask any of you, who REALLY would want to live a life chained to the demands and duties of a state? Have their itinerary dictated to them day-in day-out? Take ONLY holidays and the like only on service approval, never act spontaneously or speak out of turn lest there is a political storm?
I don't care how many palaces, crowns and silks they offered me, I wouldn't want such a LIFE (not a job, a life)! And remember... the monarch doesn't exactly get much of a choice either... they are born into it whether they like it or not!
However, I do take issue with all the "hangers on" and the peerage system. This does need reform and I wholeheartedly support the Lib Dem's efforts in this area.
Now the question of WHO should be the monarch arises. Personally, I'd have no objection to the return of the direct Stewart lineage to Scotland, the renouncement of the laws of Tanistry that brought the Saxe-Coburgs to the throne. But I am open to either situation.
Republicans cannot answer the above points of fact, they have no match for the expertise held in a monarch or the over-lordship of the military and security of the nation to an apolitical power. Remember, republicanism brings despots to power and modern democracy has revolutionised the monarchical system.
Yes revision is required, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... consider a broader range of possibilities and consequences.
#
2012-08-07 11:22
cruachan wrote:
"The function of our monarch is to be schooled in everything there is to know about our nation .... the preservation and protection of the nation ... should our elected representatives conspire against the people, the monarch has the power (via primary control of the military) to oust those responsible.
The monarch is ... a guarantor of security."
This is the duty of the citizen. The problem with the monarchy is that it cannot exist aongside good citizenship.
"The function of our monarch is to be schooled in everything there is to know about our nation .... the preservation and protection of the nation ... should our elected representatives conspire against the people, the monarch has the power (via primary control of the military) to oust those responsible.
The monarch is ... a guarantor of security."
This is the duty of the citizen. The problem with the monarchy is that it cannot exist aongside good citizenship.
#
2012-08-29 18:59
What nonsense Paul.
A citizen cannot possibly or conceivablybe expected to know all the nuances of military history and tradition, the legal precedents that have been made with regards to the nation's experience in war and peace and the particular manner in which the state does its business.
Such knowledge is not possible without dedicated schooling in such complex and wide-ranging issues. Issues which directly affect how we as a nation conduct our diplomatic efforts.
The monarch is a dedicated, unmatched and unmatchable diplomatic representative of the state. No career politician or diplomat could ever combine the wealth of experience and knowledge held in a monarch and their family.
And this quote:
"The problem with the monarchy is that it cannot exist alongside good citizenship."... is confused.
A citizen cannot possibly or conceivablybe expected to know all the nuances of military history and tradition, the legal precedents that have been made with regards to the nation's experience in war and peace and the particular manner in which the state does its business.
Such knowledge is not possible without dedicated schooling in such complex and wide-ranging issues. Issues which directly affect how we as a nation conduct our diplomatic efforts.
The monarch is a dedicated, unmatched and unmatchable diplomatic representative of the state. No career politician or diplomat could ever combine the wealth of experience and knowledge held in a monarch and their family.
And this quote:
"The problem with the monarchy is that it cannot exist alongside good citizenship."... is confused.
#
2012-08-06 20:27
I actually posted something along these lines in the Constitutional Commission Group on Facebook not too long ago. My thought was a 'trial balloon' suggesting an elected monarch as head of state... It didn't seem to generate a lot of comment or interest there... facebook.com/.../...
#
2012-08-06 20:32
How many countries have foreigners as Head of State?
[Online Editor - The Queen is head of state for 15 other nations in addition to the United Kingdom]
[Online Editor - The Queen is head of state for 15 other nations in addition to the United Kingdom]
#
2012-08-06 20:44
How can anyone seriously argue that, in the 21st century, the head of state of a free and independent Scotland should not be elected by the people of Scotland. The election could be tagged onto the 2016 general election. If Mrs. Windsor or any of her offspring or hangers-on wish to be considered for the post then they know what to do.
#
2012-08-06 21:07
Ive no real problem with Betty Battenberg, not sure how I would vote if there was a referendum, it would depend what the alternative is! The main issue is Independence, reckon too much change too quick could be a bad thing!?
#
2012-08-06 21:13
It is very ironic that the "Better Together" is trying to make a positive case for Scotland to stay within the Union.
Which one are they on about?
If you replace UK with EU in their positive case for the union they make a very good case for Scotland being an independent state within the EU:
bettertogether.net/.../...
The +ve case
We love Scotland. We are ambitious for Scotland's people and Scotland's possibilities. Our case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country - it is that there's a better choice for our future.
A Scottish Parliament within the European Union gives us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, as well as a key role in a strong and secure European Union. Now and in the future Scotland is stronger as part of the European Union and the European Union is stronger with Scotland as a partner.
The BBC and the Bank of England were founded by Scotsmen.
The Bank of France was founded by a Scotsman.
The Auld Alliance between Scotland and France founded in 1295 is the oldest alliance in the world.
Germany implemented the worlds first universal healthcare system between 1883-1889 prior to the launch of the first universal healthcare system in the Scotland in 1913 the "Highlands and Islands Medical Service".
In modern times, David McAllister a German politician of Scottish parentage was elected Prime Minister of the state of Lower Saxony in Germany.
Partners. Working together, better together.
We are proud that we fought together with France, Poland, England, Wales, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa India, United States of America, the British Commonwealth, Soviet,China, Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece, Mexico, the Netherlands and Norway among others to defeat fascism, and worked together in the European Union to build welfare states and allow freedom of movement of people and trade across all countries of the European Union. But the case we make is about what's best for Scotland's future.
Prosperity
Times are really tough at home and really turbulent internationally . In the future Scotland's prosperity will be strengthened by keeping the European connection. We need more growth, more jobs, and more prosperity in Scotland. We don't need uncertainty, instability, and barriers for our businesses.
In these tough and turbulent times, the size, strength and stability of the European economy is a huge advantage for Scotland's businesses. Scotland's largest market is the rest of the European Union. The European Union is the world's largest and most successful single market and in the European Union we have a choice of participating within the largest currency union in the world, the Euro. There are also other successful and stable currencies used within the EU such as the British Pound, Danish Krone and Swedish Krona.
Scottish businesses are increasingly having to win orders against smart, efficient and productive firms in foreign markets. These competitive challenges will only get tougher in the years ahead. The EU is better placed to help our businesses find and win new orders across the world.
Security
In an uncertain world Scotland's security will be strengthened as part of the European Union. The Armed Forces of the countries of the EU that protect us all are the best in the world and the key founding aim of the European Union was to provide stability in order to avoid future wars between EU member states. In Scotland we are proud of our Forces and proud of the vital contribution that Scotland makes in defence of our islands. As part of the European Union as an independent country we will have a seat in the UN, NATO, and the EU have Embassies around the world[i/].
Interdependence
As Scots we believe there's nowhere better, but we understand there's something bigger. By contributing to and benefiting from the multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural European Union of the years ahead, Scotland's society and culture will be enriched.
Hundreds of thousands of Scots have made their homes in other nations in the EU. Half of us have neighbours from another EU country. Hundreds of thousands of Scots were born in other EU countries. This interdependence - the coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities - is a strength not a weakness, and is an ideal worth celebrating. The truth is we're better together.
Our case is that Scotland is stronger now and will be stronger in the future - economically, politically, and socially - as a partner in the European Union.
Which one are they on about?
If you replace UK with EU in their positive case for the union they make a very good case for Scotland being an independent state within the EU:
bettertogether.net/.../...
The +ve case
We love Scotland. We are ambitious for Scotland's people and Scotland's possibilities. Our case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country - it is that there's a better choice for our future.
A Scottish Parliament within the European Union gives us the best of both worlds: real decision making power here in Scotland, as well as a key role in a strong and secure European Union. Now and in the future Scotland is stronger as part of the European Union and the European Union is stronger with Scotland as a partner.
The BBC and the Bank of England were founded by Scotsmen.
The Bank of France was founded by a Scotsman.
The Auld Alliance between Scotland and France founded in 1295 is the oldest alliance in the world.
Germany implemented the worlds first universal healthcare system between 1883-1889 prior to the launch of the first universal healthcare system in the Scotland in 1913 the "Highlands and Islands Medical Service".
In modern times, David McAllister a German politician of Scottish parentage was elected Prime Minister of the state of Lower Saxony in Germany.
Partners. Working together, better together.
We are proud that we fought together with France, Poland, England, Wales, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa India, United States of America, the British Commonwealth, Soviet,China, Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece, Mexico, the Netherlands and Norway among others to defeat fascism, and worked together in the European Union to build welfare states and allow freedom of movement of people and trade across all countries of the European Union. But the case we make is about what's best for Scotland's future.
Prosperity
Times are really tough at home and really turbulent internationally . In the future Scotland's prosperity will be strengthened by keeping the European connection. We need more growth, more jobs, and more prosperity in Scotland. We don't need uncertainty, instability, and barriers for our businesses.
In these tough and turbulent times, the size, strength and stability of the European economy is a huge advantage for Scotland's businesses. Scotland's largest market is the rest of the European Union. The European Union is the world's largest and most successful single market and in the European Union we have a choice of participating within the largest currency union in the world, the Euro. There are also other successful and stable currencies used within the EU such as the British Pound, Danish Krone and Swedish Krona.
Scottish businesses are increasingly having to win orders against smart, efficient and productive firms in foreign markets. These competitive challenges will only get tougher in the years ahead. The EU is better placed to help our businesses find and win new orders across the world.
Security
In an uncertain world Scotland's security will be strengthened as part of the European Union. The Armed Forces of the countries of the EU that protect us all are the best in the world and the key founding aim of the European Union was to provide stability in order to avoid future wars between EU member states. In Scotland we are proud of our Forces and proud of the vital contribution that Scotland makes in defence of our islands. As part of the European Union as an independent country we will have a seat in the UN, NATO, and the EU have Embassies around the world[i/].
Interdependence
As Scots we believe there's nowhere better, but we understand there's something bigger. By contributing to and benefiting from the multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural European Union of the years ahead, Scotland's society and culture will be enriched.
Hundreds of thousands of Scots have made their homes in other nations in the EU. Half of us have neighbours from another EU country. Hundreds of thousands of Scots were born in other EU countries. This interdependence - the coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities - is a strength not a weakness, and is an ideal worth celebrating. The truth is we're better together.
Our case is that Scotland is stronger now and will be stronger in the future - economically, politically, and socially - as a partner in the European Union.
#
2012-08-06 21:18
I'm no lover of the royal family, but I think that AS is playing a blinder by saying she will be the head of state post 2014. I know a lot of folk that would vote no if they thought she wouldn't be.
Thr Republican movement can happen AFTER we get the YES.
Thr Republican movement can happen AFTER we get the YES.
#
2012-08-06 21:48
So stumckin would suggest that Big Eck is 'playing a blinder' by misleading the Scottish people as to who should be head of state in the unlikely event that they opt for independence.
I would normally be tempted to condemn such a statement but it is, in truth, encouraging to see such honesty from an SNP supporter. Alex Salmond will promise anything and abandon any other principle or belief which he thinks might make separation more popular. And, in blind unison, the acolytes in his party will joyously march along the same road of hypocrisy and double dealing.
I would normally be tempted to condemn such a statement but it is, in truth, encouraging to see such honesty from an SNP supporter. Alex Salmond will promise anything and abandon any other principle or belief which he thinks might make separation more popular. And, in blind unison, the acolytes in his party will joyously march along the same road of hypocrisy and double dealing.
#
2012-08-06 22:26
How is AS misleading the Scottish people over this issue? Do you have evidence that the SNP are to declare a republic following a Yes vote? Perhaps you also have evidence of what extra powers the No campaign are to offer in the event of a No vote? That would be interesting.
#
2012-08-06 23:01
No, I'm implying that he's "playing a blinder" by playing one card at a time.
Your dislike for Alex is quite clear, but is there a better proposition for Scotland? No.
You also say "Seperation" like there will be some geological fault along the border and Scotland will drift north to cloide with Iceland in the near future. It's "Independence". Purely political. There is a vast difference!
The future of the head of state can be debated later, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a lover of the monarchy, but I can see no difference in there being a President. A Prime Minister of Scotland will do me... For now.
Your dislike for Alex is quite clear, but is there a better proposition for Scotland? No.
You also say "Seperation" like there will be some geological fault along the border and Scotland will drift north to cloide with Iceland in the near future. It's "Independence". Purely political. There is a vast difference!
The future of the head of state can be debated later, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a lover of the monarchy, but I can see no difference in there being a President. A Prime Minister of Scotland will do me... For now.
#
2012-08-06 21:27
She is Queen of Scots but we Scots get to say, if we choose to say, 'no more'. That suits me fine.
I'll be glad to get rid of the monarchy at the earliest opportunity but after the present encumbant passes on.
Besides it would be a wee bit churlish to put QE1 of Scots on the dole at her age.
I would however, like to reduce the cost of the whole entourage immediately and ensure that all Scottish 'Royal land' and buildings become the property of the SG (whatever colour it becomes).
The French tried it and were successful Cromwell tried it but to no avail.
Is it important enough to clarify before 2014? I don't think so!
Lets get the independence mandate first then it can be decided later.
I'll be glad to get rid of the monarchy at the earliest opportunity but after the present encumbant passes on.
Besides it would be a wee bit churlish to put QE1 of Scots on the dole at her age.
I would however, like to reduce the cost of the whole entourage immediately and ensure that all Scottish 'Royal land' and buildings become the property of the SG (whatever colour it becomes).
The French tried it and were successful Cromwell tried it but to no avail.
Is it important enough to clarify before 2014? I don't think so!
Lets get the independence mandate first then it can be decided later.
#
2012-08-06 22:33
Quite. The independence referendum is about whether or not we get to decide on the other issues. When that's settled, we can start asking the other questions.
#
2012-08-06 21:58
No one - without any exception can be born to a position of authority, The arguement against lords/Earls/Viscounts etc holds good for the top of that tree of inequality.
I was at a safety award recently in London which opened with a toast to the Queen - Why! (I did not toast - the peer pressure does not work anymore for me).
I'm old enough to remember god save the queen being played at the end of a night out at the pictures and you had to stand (that's movies for the kids).It would be classed as mind control now.
The system is wrong and no one will ever convince me of a right by birth. Given the number of dodgy relationships the whole royal blood line farce kills the theory anyway.
It's continued success depends on a loyal circle of sychophants who bathe in the reflected glory.
You can guess from the above that I'm republican BY CHOICE.
I was at a safety award recently in London which opened with a toast to the Queen - Why! (I did not toast - the peer pressure does not work anymore for me).
I'm old enough to remember god save the queen being played at the end of a night out at the pictures and you had to stand (that's movies for the kids).It would be classed as mind control now.
The system is wrong and no one will ever convince me of a right by birth. Given the number of dodgy relationships the whole royal blood line farce kills the theory anyway.
It's continued success depends on a loyal circle of sychophants who bathe in the reflected glory.
You can guess from the above that I'm republican BY CHOICE.
#
2012-08-06 22:10
Sounds like a good compromise to keep the queen then have a proper debate and vote before Charles becomes king, both sides should be able to live with this senario
The one thing that should be fully transparent is the truth on how much the monarchy actualy costs, then we can decide if we want to invest the money in safer roads, the NHS or infrastructure projects etc. if the unionists can come up with a good case they have nothing to worry about
The one thing that should be fully transparent is the truth on how much the monarchy actualy costs, then we can decide if we want to invest the money in safer roads, the NHS or infrastructure projects etc. if the unionists can come up with a good case they have nothing to worry about
#
2012-08-07 14:49
Surely we also need to be transparent about how much an elected head of state will cost us? I venture to suggest that the net cost will not be much different. The Royal Family is worth a few bob in tourism.
#
2012-08-06 22:27
Such a discussion would detract from the one main issue of the referendum and therefore should be left till after the result. Keep in mind here that the Queen is both very well respected and is an old woman. It is conceivable that she may die much sooner than some far off date and could possibly die at an inopportune moment which in turn could cause crises at exactly the wrong moment. It has already been stated that the Queen shall remain head of state. Muddy the waters now at the risk of losing the referendum.
Is my opinion anyway.
Is my opinion anyway.
#
2012-08-06 22:27
No need for hereditary privilege in this day and age and it isn't a requirement for being in the Common Wealth anymore is it (to have HRH as HoS)?
#
2012-08-06 22:37
All the monarchy stuff,its all about a point of view,do you believe that your parents were not good enough to have a child that could become the head of state of this country?Now we had a monarchy and then a "Protector" then some more monarchy but one that was imported for several reasons.Now we have what is laughable a constitutional monarchy,a contradiction of terms.Now I would say that no matter what the First Minister promises today independence will change everything;and how,who will be the first minister then? as we don't know who will lead the party of government,so all the talk of "How ,where when and why " are all questions that really cant be answered although a lot of people think by getting Alex Salmond to say what "He would LIKE to happen" is what will happen,could be we get a Scottish progressive party in control,or the Republican socialist party (hmm)all those what will you do cant be answered,this is the longest post I have ever done in two years,my blood must be getting up,and becoming ready for discussions.
#
2012-08-06 22:40
This is sloppy research based on a unionist myth.
Elizabeth is Queen of Scots by contractual agreement. The conditions of the contract are stipulated in Scots Law by the 1689 statute 'Claim of Rights' which remains in law - that is it is a legal written constitutional document.
Also written into Scots Law is the constitutional right that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Unlike in England sovereignty is not 'unlimited' as the crown in parliament - there is not such constitutional or legal equivalent in Scotland. Sovereignty is restricted by the will of the people.
I am happy to keep on repeating this point of primary importance until folk understand the constitutional and legally defined rights of the sovereign people of Scotland.
If we the people of Scotland told our parliament at Holyrood to bring forward a bill to withdraw from the Treaty of Union then they would have to do so. If the subsequent bill passed by one vote then the Union is ended. The Supreme Court of the UK agrees this is the case as they have stated in AXA and others vs The Scottish Parliament they can not and have no powers to set aside any Act, Bill or Statute of the Scottish Parliament which reflects the considered will of the people of Scotland.
As to the contention of what a new Scottish Constitution should look like how can anyone begin to write a new constitution when they do not even understand their current rights and liberties as a sovereign people?
Elizabeth is Queen of Scots by contractual agreement. The conditions of the contract are stipulated in Scots Law by the 1689 statute 'Claim of Rights' which remains in law - that is it is a legal written constitutional document.
Also written into Scots Law is the constitutional right that the people of Scotland are sovereign. Unlike in England sovereignty is not 'unlimited' as the crown in parliament - there is not such constitutional or legal equivalent in Scotland. Sovereignty is restricted by the will of the people.
I am happy to keep on repeating this point of primary importance until folk understand the constitutional and legally defined rights of the sovereign people of Scotland.
If we the people of Scotland told our parliament at Holyrood to bring forward a bill to withdraw from the Treaty of Union then they would have to do so. If the subsequent bill passed by one vote then the Union is ended. The Supreme Court of the UK agrees this is the case as they have stated in AXA and others vs The Scottish Parliament they can not and have no powers to set aside any Act, Bill or Statute of the Scottish Parliament which reflects the considered will of the people of Scotland.
As to the contention of what a new Scottish Constitution should look like how can anyone begin to write a new constitution when they do not even understand their current rights and liberties as a sovereign people?
#
2012-08-06 22:44
For my own part I wouldn't cross the road to see her nor do I want to support the pyramid of privilege that props her up. However, I realise that some of my fellow Scots are wedded to this and am content to take our future a step at a time. Independence first. Thereafter, discussions regarding a republic or otherwise.
#
2012-08-06 22:50
OT with Louise Mensch jacking it in as the Corby MP is there a case for the SNP standing in the by election? Big Scots population there.
Could go there and advertise their "flagship" policies and explain to the punters how you can have no tuition fees and free prescriptions if you prioritise them.
Getting the message to a wider audience.
Just a thought.
Could go there and advertise their "flagship" policies and explain to the punters how you can have no tuition fees and free prescriptions if you prioritise them.
Getting the message to a wider audience.
Just a thought.
#
2012-08-06 23:10
Quoting Early Ball:
Way things are looking, I'd be confident of an SNP candidate at least retaining his/her deposit and gaining more votes than the Lib. Dem. one ;-)
Yours aye,
OT with Louise Mensch jacking it in as the Corby MP is there a case for the SNP standing in the by election? Big Scots population there.
Could go there and advertise their "flagship" policies and explain to the punters how you can have no tuition fees and free prescriptions if you prioritise them.
Getting the message to a wider audience.
Just a thought.
Way things are looking, I'd be confident of an SNP candidate at least retaining his/her deposit and gaining more votes than the Lib. Dem. one ;-)
Yours aye,
#
2012-08-06 22:54
Glenbuchat 2012-08-06 21:48
“So stumckin would suggest that Big Eck is 'playing a blinder' by misleading the Scottish people as to who should be head of state in the unlikely event that they opt for independence.”
I would certainly agree wiith your suggestion that the SNP is “misleading the Scottish people”
call me dave 2012-08-06 21:27
“Is it important enough to clarify before 2014? I don't think so! Lets get the independence mandate first then it can be decided later.”
It still hasn’t got through to some of the posters on this site, what this referendum is all about. All that is planned, if ever we get around to a sensible question, is do the Scottish people wish to authorise the present Scottish Parliament to proceed with negotiations to secede from the Act of Union?
“So stumckin would suggest that Big Eck is 'playing a blinder' by misleading the Scottish people as to who should be head of state in the unlikely event that they opt for independence.”
I would certainly agree wiith your suggestion that the SNP is “misleading the Scottish people”
call me dave 2012-08-06 21:27
“Is it important enough to clarify before 2014? I don't think so! Lets get the independence mandate first then it can be decided later.”
It still hasn’t got through to some of the posters on this site, what this referendum is all about. All that is planned, if ever we get around to a sensible question, is do the Scottish people wish to authorise the present Scottish Parliament to proceed with negotiations to secede from the Act of Union?
#
2012-08-06 23:34
All this is quite clear to me.After independence,th e queen will remain as head of state.Her heirs will follow her in that role for as long as the Scottish people,through their parliament,are content with that arrangement.After independence,pe ople who want a republic can petition parliament for a debate on this issue.They can campaign for a referendum.They can lobby.If they garner enough support,things will change.
#
2012-08-07 04:27
The great thing about independence is it allows us all to discuss and act on such issues based on democratic consensus.
Personally I see Democracy and Monarchy as two mutually exclusive concepts, and would rather have a professional as head of state as opposed to whoever happens to be next in an heridatary line.
Personally I see Democracy and Monarchy as two mutually exclusive concepts, and would rather have a professional as head of state as opposed to whoever happens to be next in an heridatary line.
#
2012-08-07 07:50
Mealer is pretty much correct there, and AS is not misleading anyone.
If, sometime after Independence, there was a referendum on the issue, , the Scottish people will make the right choices, as they will know what the alternatives are!
If, sometime after Independence, there was a referendum on the issue, , the Scottish people will make the right choices, as they will know what the alternatives are!
#
2012-08-07 08:10
If for no other reason that Scotland as an independent nation would begin to join a whole host of international organisations, one of them being, the Commonwealth which has the queen at its head, then I can see nothing at odds with having Lizzie as titular head of state in Scotland pending the will of the people. Any monarchial change beyond that arrangement would require the express approval of the Scots people. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
#
2012-08-07 09:38
I agreee with all of the other respondents here who advocate the continuity of retaining the monarchy in an independent Scotland until dear old Betty pops her clogs. Then is the time for us to decide on our future as a monarchy or republic.
Within that decision one has also to look at the form it takes: would a President of Scotland head the executive as the US President does, or would it be a largely ceremonial post as in Ireland and Germany?
If we decided on a monarchy,would we retain the present family and system? Or would we elect a new monarchy, as Norway did on independence from Sweden? Would we prefer a slimmed down monarchy where only the monarch, their consort and the immediate heir had any titles or rank and privileges?
Its a big big subject and given ER's age it is a debate which we cannot afford to leave for too long.
Within that decision one has also to look at the form it takes: would a President of Scotland head the executive as the US President does, or would it be a largely ceremonial post as in Ireland and Germany?
If we decided on a monarchy,would we retain the present family and system? Or would we elect a new monarchy, as Norway did on independence from Sweden? Would we prefer a slimmed down monarchy where only the monarch, their consort and the immediate heir had any titles or rank and privileges?
Its a big big subject and given ER's age it is a debate which we cannot afford to leave for too long.
#
2012-08-07 10:16
As with the declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish people must retain the right to elect the monarch, the monarch will serve Scotland and not Scotland serving the Mornach as it is now.
We will know the alternatives in the future and it is not so ingrained to the Scottish people most of whom couldnt care if the Battenbergers are there or not, only the extremists will make a noise.
We will know the alternatives in the future and it is not so ingrained to the Scottish people most of whom couldnt care if the Battenbergers are there or not, only the extremists will make a noise.
#
2012-08-07 13:45
Angus I have no problem with "electing" the Monarch but to construe the Declaration of Arbroath as some sort of elective process is quite simply, romantic nonsense.
The main purpose of the letter to the Supreme Pontiff was to have the Bruce's excommunication lifted.
The main purpose of the letter to the Supreme Pontiff was to have the Bruce's excommunication lifted.
#
2012-08-07 10:53
i've lived in france since john major's last few days having given up on the democratic process in the uk. i've just witnesed an election for the head of state here. it's a sickening tournament.
as a natural republican it sticks in my throat to say it, but having a proffesional and fully trained monarchy is't such a bad system for the selection of a powerless and purely symbolic representative of all that is good about the country.
if you feel uncomfortable with the herediitial system, why not simply choose a head of state every few years using the same mechanism for choosing a jury. the last thing you want is a corporate sponsered election every few years.
as with politicians and policemen, the fact you'd want this post as a career should preclude you from being considered for it.
as a natural republican it sticks in my throat to say it, but having a proffesional and fully trained monarchy is't such a bad system for the selection of a powerless and purely symbolic representative of all that is good about the country.
if you feel uncomfortable with the herediitial system, why not simply choose a head of state every few years using the same mechanism for choosing a jury. the last thing you want is a corporate sponsered election every few years.
as with politicians and policemen, the fact you'd want this post as a career should preclude you from being considered for it.
#
2012-08-07 11:16
There are two words that occur to me in respect of this topic -grace and authority. Whatever happens over the Head of State issue, the position must hold authority by dint of the people proposing and accepting the person as Head of State and succession must be gracious and without politicking. Ireland managed it fine with first Mary Robinson and then Mary McAleese. In my view Charles would lack legitimacy as a Head of State, but he is perfectly at liberty to holiday at Balmoral and Castle of Mey.
I like the idea of the Head of State having the assent of the people - very Scottish pre-Union.
I like the idea of the Head of State having the assent of the people - very Scottish pre-Union.
#
2012-08-07 11:19
@ UpSpake 2012-08-07 08:10 , alasdairmac 2012-08-07 09:38 and Angus 2012-08-07 10:16
In concert with the majority of posters to date they seem to be of the opinion that a decision on the “Head of State” of the new independent state of Scotland should be left until after independence (secession) is complete.
I disagree most strongly with this hypothesis.
As this is one of the major elements of a written codified constitution, along with the electoral system, the relationship of Scots with their representatives and the will of the Scottish people.
I would suggest that Mark Wright’s final argument that; “The question of the head of state in an independent Scotland is not something which can be put off until after a referendum. It should be debated and codified in a written Constitution to be ratified in the event of a ‘yes’ referendum vote, so that Scots have all the information necessary to make a clear choice on their constitutional future.” Is the way forward.
In concert with the majority of posters to date they seem to be of the opinion that a decision on the “Head of State” of the new independent state of Scotland should be left until after independence (secession) is complete.
I disagree most strongly with this hypothesis.
As this is one of the major elements of a written codified constitution, along with the electoral system, the relationship of Scots with their representatives and the will of the Scottish people.
I would suggest that Mark Wright’s final argument that; “The question of the head of state in an independent Scotland is not something which can be put off until after a referendum. It should be debated and codified in a written Constitution to be ratified in the event of a ‘yes’ referendum vote, so that Scots have all the information necessary to make a clear choice on their constitutional future.” Is the way forward.
#
2012-08-07 12:31
Exel. The concept of retaining the monarchy and the implied stability it currently invokes within a sizeable portion of the population suggests to me and others that this matter can easily be defered until a later date.
However, any debate and adoption of a written constitution is for the people of Scotland to make whether or not there is a referendum. We can adopt a constitution anytime and its nothing whatsoever to do with Westminster neither for that matter, is Scotland's right to seek self determination within International Law. Something Thanklessness should take into consideration. Buffoon !.
However, any debate and adoption of a written constitution is for the people of Scotland to make whether or not there is a referendum. We can adopt a constitution anytime and its nothing whatsoever to do with Westminster neither for that matter, is Scotland's right to seek self determination within International Law. Something Thanklessness should take into consideration. Buffoon !.
#
2012-08-07 15:27
Let's get independence first and then we can start to talk about the head of state.
#
2012-08-07 15:36
Can't honestly say I've given the monarchy that much thought at any time in my life. Too far removed from my rung in the ladder. I have worked for the the aristocracy and the elites a time or two and it certainly left an impression. Different planet comes to mind.
I see no problem with having the queen as head of state, much like many of our commonwealth partners. Neither would it really bother me were we a republic. At the end of the day its where the sovereignty lies, where the power is derived from that ultimately matters and as far as I am aware, in Scotland that would be with the people.
I see no problem with having the queen as head of state, much like many of our commonwealth partners. Neither would it really bother me were we a republic. At the end of the day its where the sovereignty lies, where the power is derived from that ultimately matters and as far as I am aware, in Scotland that would be with the people.
#
2012-08-07 16:09
All this talk of heads of state and constitutions is a diversionary tactic from those who wish to derail the achievement of the primary goal - independence. I honestly do not see the need to debate these matters when they may not even be required to be put into practice.
Once statehood is achieved is the time to put meat on the bones and sort out these matters. Do not take your eye off the ball and do not let the haters sow divisions.
Once statehood is achieved is the time to put meat on the bones and sort out these matters. Do not take your eye off the ball and do not let the haters sow divisions.
#
2012-08-07 18:36
Whoa, Start messing with the monarchy whether it be this generation or coming ones before the referendum and we will absolutely lose the referendum outright and stay part of the UK.
Scots majority DO NOT want to get rid of THEIR monarch. It does not matter whether the monarch is also the monarch of England or anywhere else.
Criticism is one thing, but centuries of defending THEIR monarch and their monarchs interests has engendered a deep loyalty and that will not change any time soon and nor does it have to change for us to have independence from "England".
The monarch is the King or Queen of The Scots. Mess with the current arrangements and the succession and we will be sure to lose this chance at independence.
Even bringing the matter up risks a huge backlash against independence. That would be playing into the hands of unionists and those unionists pretending to be in favour of independence.
Personally I am fine about the Queen or Charles or William, they are or will be constitutional monarchs. Eventually new generations may wish something else and it will be up to them to initiate the change.
Currently Scots want to retain their monarch and those who truly want independence should respect that and leave the issue.
Scots majority DO NOT want to get rid of THEIR monarch. It does not matter whether the monarch is also the monarch of England or anywhere else.
Criticism is one thing, but centuries of defending THEIR monarch and their monarchs interests has engendered a deep loyalty and that will not change any time soon and nor does it have to change for us to have independence from "England".
The monarch is the King or Queen of The Scots. Mess with the current arrangements and the succession and we will be sure to lose this chance at independence.
Even bringing the matter up risks a huge backlash against independence. That would be playing into the hands of unionists and those unionists pretending to be in favour of independence.
Personally I am fine about the Queen or Charles or William, they are or will be constitutional monarchs. Eventually new generations may wish something else and it will be up to them to initiate the change.
Currently Scots want to retain their monarch and those who truly want independence should respect that and leave the issue.
#
2012-08-07 20:02
UpSpake 2012-08-07 12:31
"Exel. The concept of retaining the monarchy and the implied stability it currently invokes within a sizeable portion of the population suggests to me and others that this matter can easily be defered until a later date."
As I said that hypothesis is yet to be tested, both in debate and by a referendum. I am suggesting that you are wrong.
You say; “However, any debate and adoption of a written constitution is for the people of Scotland to make whether or not there is a referendum.”
Again I think you are wrong, only the result of the referendum will confirm who is correct. I refer you again to Mark Wright’s final argument and the last sentence of his piece; Scots deserve nothing less.
“We can adopt a constitution anytime and its nothing whatsoever to do with Westminster neither for that matter, is Scotland's right to seek self determination within International Law.”
I have never suggested otherwise. I suggest you read again the SDAs own document “Why Scotland needs a written constitution”
“Something Thanklessness should take into consideration. Buffoon !”.
You will have to explain that statement or is it a personal insult?
"Exel. The concept of retaining the monarchy and the implied stability it currently invokes within a sizeable portion of the population suggests to me and others that this matter can easily be defered until a later date."
As I said that hypothesis is yet to be tested, both in debate and by a referendum. I am suggesting that you are wrong.
You say; “However, any debate and adoption of a written constitution is for the people of Scotland to make whether or not there is a referendum.”
Again I think you are wrong, only the result of the referendum will confirm who is correct. I refer you again to Mark Wright’s final argument and the last sentence of his piece; Scots deserve nothing less.
“We can adopt a constitution anytime and its nothing whatsoever to do with Westminster neither for that matter, is Scotland's right to seek self determination within International Law.”
I have never suggested otherwise. I suggest you read again the SDAs own document “Why Scotland needs a written constitution”
“Something Thanklessness should take into consideration. Buffoon !”.
You will have to explain that statement or is it a personal insult?
#
2012-08-10 21:11
I love the idea of debating SCOTLAND's Head of state without the mischief & interference of British Nationalists who irrationally abhor Scottish democracy and the decisions of Scottish people.
Wait for the sounds of those like George Foulkes telling Scots that they don't hold the powers, or the right or the mental capacity to decide on republicanism let alone their nationhood.
Ian Davidson MP who takes Scottish Trades Union members cash whilst calling for Loony Labour leader to attack public service jobs and cut vital services to the needy also thinks that Tories voted in by Londoners hold more rights than Scots over Scottish political life.
Wait for the sounds of those like George Foulkes telling Scots that they don't hold the powers, or the right or the mental capacity to decide on republicanism let alone their nationhood.
Ian Davidson MP who takes Scottish Trades Union members cash whilst calling for Loony Labour leader to attack public service jobs and cut vital services to the needy also thinks that Tories voted in by Londoners hold more rights than Scots over Scottish political life.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Scotland's enormous resources ...
If we do not get a Yes vote in September... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
I'm opposed to keeping the £. I want ful... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
Agreed, Breeks - it's liking asking your... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
We still have two children and four gran... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
This sets out the strengths of Scotland ... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
What's the problem if it advances the de... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Indeed Glenbuchat, just as Mrs Fungus wa... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
[Admin - Newsnet Scotland exlusively rev... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
Jamie the whole point of Independence is... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
[Admin - Can you please refrain from ask... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
The report is a damp squib. Rather than ... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
bbc.co.uk/.../... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Radio 5 live was at it all day today wi... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
This is to be on Newsnight tonight I sup... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
Darling, head of the Better Together cab... - What Kind of European and Brit...
Gerry, it is simple, the Empire is final... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Hi Chicmac, Your children like many othe... - Scotland's enormous resources ...
For those who have not seen the document... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Surely it is academic whether Mr Healey ... - Anger at BBC Scotland virtual ...
Will that not take the no campaign over ...