THERE appears to be growing calls for a referendum on the monarchy, fuelled in part by the recent visit to Scotland by Prince William and his wife. Personally I would rather leave that whole debate to a post-independent Scotland. It will be hard enough to convince our fellow citizens of the merits of the case for independence without alienating some with calls to sack the Queen – or possibly the King.
The Queen has been the Queen for as long as I have lived. I have not met her face-to-face. I can only judge her through the prism of my TV set, social media and the newspapers. I recall that she was not destined for the job. The political and personal views of her late uncle forced her late father into the role of king. A role he most certainly did not want.
READ MORE: The monarchy has made a significant contribution to our literary achievement
There is no doubt that the current Queen has made the very best of a sometimes difficult job. Like all families there have been good days and bad. Family members have featured in the tabloid press on more occasions than, I suspect, the Queen would have liked. There is of course the thorny issue of the vast amounts of inherited wealth and the debatable amounts of public money invested annually in the royal family.
I suspect in a post-independence referendum, I would vote to end the monarchy. I feel it is a concept that has probably outlived its usefulness. The idea that someone should gain rank, privilege and possibly public wealth by virtue of their parentage is a bit alien to me. I even find the swearing of allegiance to the monarch by our MSPs difficult to accept.
READ MORE: Michael Fry: Why the majority of Scots would, despite its flaws, vote to keep the monarchy
I have no wish to be in some way subservient to Charles and Camilla, William and Kate or their heirs and successors. I bear them no ill will. I hope their occasional public appearances and charitable patronage will continue to give pleasure to many.
We live in modern hopefully soon to be independent nation. The year is 2021 not 1821 and certainly not 1621.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
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