SO, it seems that Charlie will pop north on Wednesday for a day in our nation’s capital where he will take possession of the Honours of Scotland during a “national service of thanksgiving”. Billed as another celebration following his accession to the throne of England, this one is for the purpose of portraying him as sovereign of the Scots! And at no small expense to the Scottish taxpayer during a cost-of-living crisis, by the way!
READ MORE: Reading about King Charles's new sword transported me back to 1603
Now, here’s where I get a bit confused. You see, I thought because of the Claim of Right of 1989 that the people of Scotland were sovereign? If they are then surely before the symbols of Scottish sovereignty are handed over to an over-privileged burden on the taxpayer who doesn’t even live here, shouldn’t the sovereign people of Scotland at least be approached and asked if they are happy to hand over these very expensive trinkets to the head of state of another country?
Or maybe this is another establishment nomenclature manoeuvre like the one we’ve seen where less and less we are referred to as “subjects” – which we are under a monarch – and instead called “citizens”, which we would be if we lived in a republic. So, are we “sovereign” or is Charlie “the sovereign”? Any answers?
Ned Larkin
Inverness
ON Friday, only five days before King Charles is to "receive” the Honours of Scotland in a Coronation-lite event in St Giles, I learned that he is to be presented with “The Elizabeth Sword”. Have I been asleep, or has the creation of this bit of bling been somewhat underreported since its inception?
I suspect it has, as I am quite sure that, if the Scottish body politic had been asked if it was in favour of its creation, it would have replied “Eh? Yer kiddin!”
The Scottish Government website tells us that the Elizabeth Sword was commissioned at the end of 2022, on the initiative of the Lord Lyon King of Arms, and with approval from the Scottish Government at a cost of £22,000. So apparently it was his idea, and our government had to go along with it, because how could it do other?
READ MORE: Scottish Government to pay for 'second' coronation - plus £22k sword
The Wikipedia page of Joseph Morrow CVO CBE KC FRSE, the current Lord Lyon, informs us that he is a former Labour councillor and Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland, from which one might suspect that he may have a fondness for the Union, and an antipathy towards an independent Scotland.
While I acknowledge that the sword in question displays the highest quality of Scottish materials and craftmanship, this does not detract from its apparent function, that of helping to create a new history of Scotland bound within a resurgent Unionist Carolean age.
Personally I am disgusted that the Honours of Scotland, genuine regalia from the time when we were an independent European country, having survived for more than 500 years and having dodged Cromwell’s Commonwealth (ie Union), are now to be polluted by the addition of this sword. I look forward to the day when, as an independent country, we deliver it as a present to the Westminster office of Lord Alister Jack, for service as a letter opener.
Ken Gow
Banchory
I AM very cross that The National would call the event taking place in Edinburgh on Wednesday “the Scottish Coronation”. It most definitely is NOT a coronation. Charles will not be taking the Oath of the Monarchs of Scotland, therefore he cannot be crowned King of Scots. Why must this lie be kept alive? Is it not the duty of good journalism to tell the truth. God knows Scotland is bombarded with English state propaganda. I was really hoping The National would tell the real story.
Carolyn Williams
via email
THE ruling by the Court of Appeal that UK Government plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda is unlawful should hardly come as a surprise. Putting aside the cost, estimated at £169,000 for every person deported and processed, there is the small matter of Rwanda’s human rights record. Hence the Court ruling that Rwanda had not provided enough safeguards to prove it is a “safe third country”.
According to the US Department of State, there are reports that the Rwandan government has committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, with further documentation of the abuse of detainees by police, as well as arbitrary arrests and detention.
READ MORE: Home Secretary blasts 'phoney humanitarianism' for small boats failure
It also notes that the government continued to use arbitrary arrest (or the threat of arbitrary arrest) as a tool to discourage government critics, independent voices, and political opposition members.
Local officials and state security forces also continue to detain and imprison some individuals who had previously disagreed with government decisions, or the police.
The proposed Rwanda scheme has thankfully been shown to be unworkable, unethical and indeed highly expensive – par for the course, however, for a Tory government more interested in dog-whistle politics than reason and compassion.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel