CHARLES was officially proclaimed King at 10am on Saturday at the Accession Council and an hour later proclaimed sovereign, with a second proclamation as sovereign at noon at the Royal Exchange in the City of London. There were proclamations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on Sunday.
In Scotland there are serious doubts about whether we want to remain in the UK, and whether we wish to retain the monarchy. Many in Scotland like the monarchy as an institution and had a great affection for Elizabeth, but I think many more in Scotland do not share that view.
READ MORE: King Charles III proclaimed King at Accession Council
The Lord Lyon King of Arms read this proclamation out at 11am to the people of Scotland. There were numerous other ceremonies throughout Scotland. In Wales, the proclamation was at Cardiff Castle, with the Wales Herald of Arms Extraordinary making the proclamation in English and the Lord Lieutenant of South Glamorgan doing the honours in Welsh.
So my question is: “Why are we accepting a new monarch who is preserving all the bad things we want to be rid of?” Should we not now be putting this to the people of Scotland to decide? The Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, while accepting King Charles as head of state for now, is pushing for a referendum on a republic within three years. Scotland’s First Minister is a Privy Counsellor and part of the Accession Council, and has said nothing.
By many metrics, the United Kingdom is a failed state. The nation-state is supposed to create a system of rule of law, with rights which can be defended, and then create as far as possible the conditions where people can live their lives reasonably well. In the UK, this is no longer the case. In one of the richest countries in the world, people are reduced to using food banks to eat, as all their money goes on exorbitant rents and energy. The government enables the exploitation of the poor by laws promoting zero-hours contracts, punitive welfare sanctions, and encouraging the greed of the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Their answer to the complaints of the poor (and by many measures that is now most of us) is to work harder/faster/smarter – anything as long as it is not dismantling the structures of power.
READ MORE: King Charles proclamation in Edinburgh met with boos
The UK has scant regard for the law when it applies to themselves (Partygate), and only cared about exploitative big business when it became apparent it was affecting the middle class. With its New Zealand trade deal, it wants to turn the UK into a dumping ground for thousands of tonnes of foreign produce, and to hell with Scottish farmers. It applies the rigour of the law to trade unionists and benefit claimants, and it is not creating the economic conditions where people can lead dignified lives.
It is dismantling laws which protect the people, like replacing the Human Rights Act. It is disregarding the Northern Ireland Protocol and couldn’t care less about a continued relationship with the EU, not to mention its destruction of Scotland’s and Northern Ireland’s relationship with the EU. The UK could have been like Denmark, which has territories which are not in the EU while Denmark itself is, but that would have weakened central grip in the UK.
The monarchy legitimises all the power imbalances at every level of society. It promotes the idea that things should just continue as they always have. Kings and Queens belong in the Middle Ages.
READ MORE: Two breach of the peace arrests made amid King Charles's Edinburgh proclamation
Wouldn’t this have been a great time for Scotland to state we are NOT going to automatically fall in line? To restate the supremacy of the people of Scotland, and delay acceptance of a new monarch until we are sure we want one?
By all means, respect the passing of Elizabeth, support the idea of monarchy if you want, but the ceremonies and trappings of the passing of power are deliberately set up so as to make us fall in line for fear of being seen to disrespect the passing monarch and, worse, upset the apple cart. But isn’t that what a nationalist Scottish Government should be doing, at least asking the question?
Julia Pannell
Friockheim, Tayside
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