Imperialist monarchies have no place
in forward-looking Scotland

10 years have passed since the Scottish Parliament which was adjourned in 1707 was reconvened. I remember the official state opening of Parliament on the 1^st of July 1999, not least because I was actually inside the packed General Assembly building that acted as the forum for Scotland’s first parliament in almost 300 years. Sitting a few seats along from me was Sean Connery and his wife and around me various dignitaries and relatives of the newly elected MSPs.

This official state opening was to be very different from the traditional formality experienced by London MPs, but all the same the monarch was to be present as “head of state”.

10 years on and the Queen has once more travelled north to what turned out to be a largely low key event. All the same what appears like mass hysteria broke out in various sections of the medjah howled their disapproval that almost 50 MSPs, of all parties failed to turn up for the event. The Times (of London, don’t you know) went completely overboard with articles highlighting the “lamentable” absence of MSPs with Magnus Linklater, Mike Wade, Charlene Sweeney and Labour’s Angus McLeod all writing almost identical pieces. The arch-Tory opinionist Alan Cochrane also waded in suggesting Mrs Windsor, formerly Mrs Saxe-Coburg Gotha, should repeal the Scotland Act as punishment. Cochrane has somewhat of a reputation for taking any opportunity to knock the aforementioned MSPs and some of them get unduly hot under the collar at his often bizarre observations. I have always been a little more relaxed, even when on occasion he has had a pop at me and consol myself in the knowledge that with a readership of just 17,000 in Scotland, there are likely lavvy doors on Calton Hill with a bigger readership than the Daily Telegraph.  

More substantively however is the implication that these MSPs were in some way involved in an unofficial protest directed at Queen Elizabeth II of England. If only that were true, but only a few are known to be overt republicans and indeed some MSPs who attended the event have previously stated their support for a republic, so the rather OTT reaction from the usual establishment publications doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

One positive aspect is that the issue will focus some well needed attention on the future role of QE2E once Scotland finally move towards independence. The position of the SNP over the decades has remained largely consistent and a general consensus has emerged in the past 15 years that the issue should be placed on the back burner until independence is fully secured. As a republican all that is fine, if the expectation is that we will move towards embracing a democratically elected and accountable head of state within a reasonable time of winning back our independence. How can we possibly be fully independent if we retain as head of state the very embodiment and institution from which we seek our freedom? The First Minister has suggested Scotland would return to its post 1707 position, with England and Scotland sharing a monarch and retaining the social bonds that he implies existed in the intervening 104 years between the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Act of Union. It is not a model however that stands up to close scrutiny. Even in 1707 as the Treaty was being debated in the last Scottish Parliament the “benefits” of a united Crown were not apparent to the primary Scottish decision-makers of the day. Lord Belhaven remarked: “All of our affairs since the Union of Crowns have been managed with the advice of English Ministers. This means that we have appeared more like a conquered nation rather than a free and independent people.”

The debate however is in essence not one about whether we should retain the monarch or elect a president, it is surely about the kind of independent Scotland we want to see emerge. Paul Scott in a television interview during the 1980s stated the choice for nationalists and for Scotland is really one about the type of country and society we want to see evolve. Do we want a “little England”? An independent Scotland but that retains all the values, cultural references and worldly outlook that England has, albeit with a kilt on, or do we want to forge a new nation, with a pride in its past, but with an eye on a new future based on equality, justice for all and not waded down by the imperialist and elitist baggage which is epitomised in the institution which is the British monarchy. There is a choice for us and some serious, less hysterical debate needed on this issue. 

BBC polls suggests “Aunty” should change her name

The BBC has made a great deal of its recent poll of Scottish public opinion. Amongst the more interesting results was the question on national identity, a question that has been repeated many times over the decades and which demonstrates with each new result a decline in a sense of “Britishness” in Scotland.

The results are particularly in the regional breakdowns that emerged. More people in Glasgow for instance, 34%, said they were Scottish not British, the highest percentage in the country. The highest number of respondents stating they were British not Scottish came in the Highlands and Islands. The poll also found that you were more likely to feel Scottish than British or more Scottish than British is you worked full time, although overall working class or unemployed people felt generally more Scottish than those in the AB social classes, where 15% of respondents regarded themselves as more British than Scottish.

But does any of this really matter? In some ways no, not hugely, but it does indicate that Scotland is growing in confidence and shirked off much of the national cringe that formerly beset the nation prior to the 1960s. Although modern mainstream Scottish nationalism generally plays down issues of national identity there is no doubt about its importance in setting the tone to push the national debate forward.