George Kerevan: Why the monarchy should have no place in Scotland post-independence

I was a local councillor in Edinburgh in the 1980s and 1990s, when the Lord Provost’s office was in charge of protocol and arrangements, whenever a “royal” passed through the capital. Fergie, Andrew Windsor’s temporary wife before she dumped him for her financial adviser, was the most outrageous. She demanded two council limos when visiting – the second for her luggage.

Phil was less ostentatious on his annual trips north. He and Brenda usually did a week’s public duty every July – opening bazaars and gracing the General Assembly – before disappearing to Balmoral for their hols.

I regularly got to scrape and bow at the Ceremony of the Keys at Holyrood Palace, where the Queen was presented with an outsized mortice representing her feudal overlordship. There is always a party at the palace in Royal Week. Once, I was let in surreptitiously by an acquaintance who will be anonymous. Everywhere, there were young army subalterns snogging pretend debutants in dark corners. Or more.

One year when I was on the board of Filmhouse, Edinburgh’s art cinema, we had Phil open our new auditorium. There was much discussion regarding a suitable movie, though being an old seadog, I expect he was very open to watching anything.

We eventually plumped for John Boorman’s The Emerald Forrest, about a kid lost in the Brazilian rainforest. Phil was unimpressed and talked loudly through the performance, despite shushes from the audience. Actually, he was right – it was boring.

READ MORE: Scotland's political parties halt 2021 campaigns after Prince Philip's death

The last time I saw Phil was in 2016 at the 200th anniversary of Musselburgh Racecourse. This was more his cup of tea. Brenda did the honours with Phil walking the regulation pace behind. As the local MP, I did the equally obligatory bowing and scraping and asked if I should put a bet on the royal horses that were running that day. Phil suggested not, as they weren’t running to form. Pity: I was hoping for some inside dope.

The insane media adulation around Philip Battenberg’s passing is no surprise. The death of the patriarch will bring grief to the immediate family and nobody with human feelings will gainsay that. But frankly, we are watching a dress rehearsal for Brenda’s exit. Post any Covid restrictions, we can expect weeks of sycophancy and imperialist pantomime. I fully intend to unplug my TV and take to strong drink.

If Phil’s passing signifies anything it is the hollow appeal of the rancid, decaying Windsor monarchy. True, the politicians have lined up to offer wooden eulogies testifying to Mr Battenberg’s so-called sense of public duty. But you can hear the insincerity in their voices. As a republican and a democrat, let me put on record my abhorrence of this concept of “public duty”, even if it involves sitting through boring movies.

The notion of royal “public service” is an ideological camouflage that lets the elite pretend they play a useful role in society while they are busy ripping us off. It justifies a secretive, largely unelected, anti-democratic political system that permits the political executive – acting in the name of “the crown” – to do virtually what it damned well pleases.

It validates an unelected second chamber that retains widespread political influence. One that lets Michelle Mone vote on the law of the land because she designed a better class of brassiere, for God’s sake.

Above all, the concept of “public service” by the royals and the political elite puts ordinary folk in a subordinate position.

​READ MORE: BBC halts TV programming across 'all networks' to air news on Prince Philip

Our “betters” are there to look after us. We are there to be patronised, taxed and told not to speak to Brenda or Phil unless we are first spoken to (a feudal injunction I always took infinite joy in ignoring). Which is why an independent Scotland has to pension off the Windsor family and all the feudal nonsense it represents.

SCOTTISH society – even more so than that of England – is riddled with feudal hangovers. The Union of 1707 was a ploy by the Scots oligarchs to get the English state to protect their feudal rights against plebeian uprising.

Only in Scotland could the Hamilton family have representatives in the outgoing Scots Parliament of 1707 and in the reborn Holyrood Parliament of 1999. Only in Scotland can the Hamiltons still have a reserved room at Holyrood Palace to hold parties.

This is not an animus directed at the late Phil Battenberg and his errant brood. Looking at their sad, wasted lives, I think it would be a merciful release for them to abolish the hereditary principle. Rather, it is about defining what we mean by Scottish independence and the new nation we want to build. I look forward to an independent Scottish republic where deference and so-called “public service” is replaced by a collective will to make a better society.

The central weakness in the traditional case for Scottish independence – at least that proffered by the SNP – is that it offers the prospect of instant riches for everyone. That nothing much will change except, somehow, we will all be better off – as if by magic.

I’m sorry, but that’s plain wrong. A new, independent Scotland that is fit to live in will need to be built from the ground up. It will take hard graft. It will take sacrifice. Once we clear out the detritus of 300 years of British exploitation, we will need to start again. Independence is not a comfort blanket.

Traditional SNP thinking has been to preserve that comfort blanket – including the Windsor monarchy – lest Scots run shy of what achieving independence will take.

Well, they might. But history has moved on a pace and I suspect the rise of a new, nasty version of English nationalism and self-interest has foreclosed the option of pretending we can have our cake and eat it. It is time to be realistic about building a Scottish republic. Some cling to the myopic view that keeping the House of Windsor as Scotland’s hereditary head of state somehow will make gaining independence easier. Alyn Smith MP (below), for instance, has recently re-iterated his support for the Queen being head of state with the explanation it will make it possible for Unionists to accept eventual independence.

He mentions Orange Loyalists as an example. Alyn’s naivety is touching. Offering to keep the Windsors won’t dispel virulent opposition to independence in certain Loyalist quarters. Keeping the Windsors after indy will only give hope to those who want to reverse the people’s verdict.

​READ MORE: BBC flooded with complaints of 'too much TV coverage' of death of Prince Philip

The worst thing about the response to the death of Philip Battenberg is the rank hypocrisy. I don’t believe for a minute the sincerity of the hordes of media broadcasters and pundits now extolling the newly discovered virtues of the deceased husband of the monarch.

I’ve been there myself: I had to affirm allegiance to Brenda and her heirs in order to be sworn in as an MP. I lied happily, in order to be able to do my job, but it was demeaning and undemocratic. We can’t build a new Scotland on such quicksands. Long live the Scottish republic and the sooner the better.