SCOTLAND’S political leaders began First Minister’s Questions this week with a tribute to the Queen on her Platinum Jubilee.

Nicola Sturgeon said the 70th anniversary of the monarch’s accension to the throne represented a “unique and remarkable record of service”.

Likewise, Unionist leaders were generous in their praise. Douglas Ross hailed the Queen’s “incredible service” to the UK while Anas Sarwar paid tribute to her “dedicated commitment”.

Yet the jubilee celebration has triggered fresh debate about the monarch’s role in Scotland, and raised questions over possible heads of state after independence.

There was outrage on Wednesday when it was revealed the UK Government would be spending £12 million to mark the occasion by sending thousands of “commemorative” books to primary schools across the UK – including Scotland, despite education being reserved.

SNP MSP James Dornan subsequently took aim at the monarchy in Holyrood during a special jubilee debate.

“No family should have the right to be treated as superior because of an accident of birth,” he told MSPs. “They’re simply people, pampered by this class-ridden society, but still only people.”

Those comments sparked ire on Tory benches, where support for the monarchy is predictably steadfast.

But the issue of the royal family’s role in an independent Scotland is a more nuanced debate.

Despite Dornan’s comments, the SNP have long supported keeping the monarchy in place after a Yes vote. That position has held since 1934, when the newly formed party demanded “dominion status within the British empire”.

READ MORE: Scotland reacts to 'royalist propaganda' being sent to primary school children

The party’s 2014 White Paper prospectus for independence set out the modern party’s stance on the issue, which remains to this day.

It states: “On independence Scotland will be a constitutional monarchy, continuing the Union of the Crowns that dates back to 1603, pre-dating the Union of the Parliaments by over one hundred years. The position of Her Majesty The Queen and head of state will form an intrinsic part of the constitutional platform in place for independence in 2016.”

Scotland’s other party of government, the Greens, don’t exactly agree.

The party states: “The Scottish Greens are clear that after independence asking the people to choose a democratically accountable head of state would be the best step forward towards a becoming a modern European nation, unencumbered by entrenched inequality and privilege.”

While they back on a vote on the matter, Green leaders have made their personal feelings known. Following a series of royal scandals last year, co-chief Patrick Harvie said the monarchy is an "outdated" and "discredited" system that would "hold back" an independent Scotland.

He added: “The idea that any family has the right to such status based on hereditary titles and unearned wealth would hold Scotland back, and it’s not one that the Scottish Greens will ever support.”

“Their shooting and hunting estates can be put to better use serving the local communities and creating more jobs.”

“The Scotland that we want to build is one that will challenge entrenched inequality and privilege, not put it right at the heart of power."

The National:

READ MORE: Fighting for a Scottish republic – royal scandals highlight problems of monarchies

Campaigners have stepped up their efforts to ditch the monarchy too. Last year a new group was formed to lobby for a Scottish republic. Our Republic, run by activists of different party affiliations, wants to abolish the constitutional monarchy and create a fully democratic state with Crown Estate assets transferring into public hands.

The organisation reacted angrily to reports about the “commemorative” school books and reiterated calls for Scots to back an elected alternative to the royals.

Our Republic told The National: “The monarchy is a corruptive influence on our society and culture, creating the impression that unaccountable power, being above the law, is a natural state for people with enough wealth and with the right families.

“This corruption is unsustainable, and will not be saved by a desperate attempt to prop them up by throwing pamphlets at children.”

“It's about time Scotland returned to our roots, of democratic consent to rule and the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to choose who represents us. It's time for a Scottish Republic."

But what do the public think?

Support for the monarchy is considerably lower in Scotland than in other parts of Britain, yet a high proportion consistently favour keeping the royal family as heads of state.

The latest major You Gov study, published in March last year, found 50% of Scots believe the monarchy should remain in place. That’s compared to the overall British average of 63%. One-third (33%) of Scots backed an elected head of state, compared to 25% of Brits.

If the matter were put up for a vote after independence, studies suggest more Scots would stick with the monarchy. Research conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, published in June, found that 47% of Scottish adults would vote to keep a royal head of state after a Yes vote. This is compared to the 35% who would favour an elected head of state.

More Scots were against royal meddling in any future referendum debate, following scandals during the 2014 campaign. The survey found that almost half of Scots (49%) thought such an intervention would be “unacceptable”. Around one-third (32%) said they would be happy to have the royals intervene politically, while 19% were unsure.

As for who would replace the Queen were Scots to elect a new head of state, no clear favourite emerged from the YouGov research. The most popular choice was no-one, on 14%, followed by Prince William on 13%.

The next name on the list raised a few eyebrows, with Sir David Attenborough selected by 11% of respondents, above Nicola Sturgeon on 10%.

With public and political opinion split, the debate over the monarchy is sure to rumble on – and certain to be a key debate in any indyref2 campaign.