BARBADOS is only a bit bigger than twice the land area of Glasgow. But by declaring itself a republic and ditching the increasingly bonkers Windsor clan as hereditary heads of state, the tiny Caribbean island has struck a blow for democracy – and for common sense.
The real question is whether other bits of the crumbling British Commonwealth follow the lead of Barbados and dump the Windsors?
Of course, Barbados is only the latest in a very long lone of escapees from the tentacles of the British monarchical caste. The first colony to decamp the empire in favour of a republic was, of course, the United States.
The principal ideologue of the American Revolution was the English-born radical, Thomas Paine. His influential pamphlet Common Sense – a spirited attack on George III and the insidious notion of choosing your head of state by reference to who slept with who – sold half a million copies in the original 13 Colonies (population two million).
READ MORE: Barbados ditching monarchy will 'trigger calls' for other countries to remove Queen
Paine’s “common sense” was a direct reference to Scottish Enlightenment thinking and his original republicanism has remained at the heart of the struggle for independence from the British imperial enterprise.
The Crown may have lost some of its formal powers over the centuries, but it remains a vital political smokescreen that allows the corrupt British oligarchy (Lords, Eton, Oxbridge, the City, the BBC) to pretend it is more democratic than it really is.
As a result, when the Indian sub-continent tore itself out of the Empire in 1949, new nations such as India and Pakistan immediately adopted republican constitutions. Currently, 34 out of the 54 Commonwealth members are republics.
Who might be next? Top of the list is Australia. The latest polls in Australia put support for a republic at 48%, for the monarchy at 28%, leaving the undecideds on 28%. The likelihood is that once Queen Elizabeth passes on, the mood will shift decidedly to embracing the Australian republic. The local Labour Party and Greens are strongly in favour of the change.
Next up is Canada. Hitherto, support for the monarchy has remained relatively strong among the mainstream political parties in Canada, perhaps as a bulwark against encroachments from the United States, or as an Anglophone rallying point against Quebec independence. But the latest polls put support for an elected head of state at 45%, up considerably from 2020. Only 24% now want to keep the monarchy. But 19% say they don’t care either way.
One suspects (like in Australia) this abstentionism may evaporate once Charles III ascends the throne, tilting the balance towards a republic.
READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Barbados broke free from colonial past – despite Covid and a recession
We might note here an interesting constitutional point that Mrs Windsor is the monarch of each individual country rather than acting as a collective head of state, which means there will be big trouble if she becomes incapacitated through age.
Canada, for instance, has no legal mechanism to make Charles the regent should Lizzie not be able to continue with her duties. An ageing Elizabeth Windsor could conceivably end her reign with a Commonwealth constitutional crisis.
And what of independent Scotland? This writer attended the last major SNP conference debate on republicanism, back at the end of the last century. “Red” Rosie Cunningham was still in her republican phase (she grew up in Aussie land) and led the charge for a Scottish republic. Some arch constitutionalists demanded a separate (Jacobite?) Scottish monarch. Most delegates plumped for parking the issue till after independence.
Perhaps, after Barbados, it is time for the Scottish national movement to dust down its copies of Thomas Paine and join the modern world.
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