THE SNP are being urged to consider adopting a position of neutrality over whether to retain the monarchy in an independent Scotland.
Toni Giugliano, SNP policy development convener, argued the party’s current policy to retain the Crown was largely built around the popularity of the late Queen Elizabeth.
He said the accession of King Charles is a timely moment to examine the issue and suggested the party could move to a position of neutrality instead.
The idea of holding onto the “pomp and ceremony” of the “most opulent monarchy in the world” would not be compatible with building a modern European nation, he added.
The end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign has revived debate in a number of Commonwealth countries about the future of the monarchy.
Giugliano told the Sunday National: “As we move beyond the period of national mourning, it’s right that we look to the future and ask ourselves what kind of Scotland we want to build.
“Countries across the Commonwealth are already beginning to look beyond the monarchy. Prime minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern said she expects ‘an evolution’ in their relationship with the monarchy and that this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
“The Queen was the monarchy’s greatest asset, so I think it’s natural that people begin to consider what comes next.
“I think what we witnessed over the past fortnight was people mourning a hugely respected figure who has been forever present in our lives and someone who dedicated their entire life to public service.
“There’s a distinction between paying your respects to an individual and supporting the monarchy as an institution.
“I was appalled but not surprised by the way in which the pro-Union commentariat politicised the Queen’s death to shore up support for the Union.”
Since the death of Queen Elizabeth, senior figures in the SNP have underlined the party’s long-held position of being in favour of maintaining the monarchy. As outlined in the White Paper on Scotland’s Future in 2014: “Scotland will be a constitutional monarchy for as long as the people of Scotland wish us to be so”.
Yesterday, SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford spoke about the issue as he also urged King Charles to open Balmoral Castle to the public all year round.
He said: “I am content with carrying on with having a monarch as head of state. We have a monarchical Union whose existence predates the Act of Union.
“And I think it’s right that we celebrate all the things that the Queen has done and that we welcome Prince Charles as a new monarch.”
But others in the independence movement take a different stance, with the Scottish Greens arguing keeping the “outdated, discredited and totally undemocratic institution” would hold an independent Scotland back. At their inaugural conference last year, Alba Party members backed abolishing the monarch in an independent Scotland after the end of the Queen’s reign.
Giugliano pointed to a poll carried out in May this year which found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, compared to 60% across the UK.
He said: “Our current policy to retain the monarchy in an independent Scotland was largely built around popular support for the Queen, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of our membership or indeed, the people of Scotland.
“If we’re serious about building a modern European democracy, we can’t simultaneously hold onto the pomp and ceremony of the most opulent monarchy in the world. We can’t point to the unelected House of Lords and equally hold onto the unelected Head of State.
“We can’t talk about fairer taxation but then retain a monarch who doesn’t pay tax like the rest of us.”
HE added: “In 2014, we spent too much time reassuring voters that many things would stay the same – like currency and monarchy.
“Actually, we need to inspire people about what will be different.
“I’d be surprised if we didn’t move to a position of neutrality on the monarchy, perhaps at a reconvened National Council. The head of state should be a matter for the people of Scotland to determine post-independence.
“Ultimately, people aren’t lying awake at night worrying about the monarchy but rather how they’ll pay their bills at the end of the month.
“This issue won’t win or lose the referendum, but we need to remain politically coherent and ask ourselves ‘what kind of country are we trying to build?’”
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