For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish…

For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish… - Scottish Review article by Scottish Review
Listen to this article

For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here

Answers to citizenship questions:

2

2

Kenneth Roy

2

Paul Cockburn

Readers’ views

Maxwell MacLeod

7

Islay McLeod

R D Kernohan

Andrew Sanders

The Cafe

Rick Wilson

Kenneth Roy

Ian Hamilton

Walter Humes

William Kate

It’s contradictory I know; I’m a firm believer in the principle of democracy – and, for better or worse, that delightfully Scottish fundamental of the sovereignty of the people – yet I retain a fondness for the British monarchy. Not that it automatically translates into a dutiful love for all its members. Nor was my breast swelling with pride and joy on discovering via Twitter about what’s now growing inside Kate’s uterus.

All the same, a constitutional monarchy does strike me as the preferred option for head of state. I accept that this is largely down to upbringing; my parents grew up (in all senses) during the second world war and, as a result, strongly identified with the British monarchy. That my mother was only a few months younger than the present monarch added to her sense of a personal connection.

Although I grew up in what was certainly a pro-monarchy household, I’m not blind to how its hereditary principle is undemocratic. More, I accept that its existence underpins too many of the social and political inequalities you’ll find in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. And yet…given that our day-to-day governance is (allegedly) in the hands of our politicians, there’s an opportunity for the monarch to perform a quite different role.

The queen’s raison d’être is, first and foremost, to represent the nation. Not just in the here and now, dragged from bed each morning to meet people, shake hands and host banquets and garden parties for the visiting good, bad and ugly. She is there to embody the continuity of the nation, the long history of precedent and tradition on which the legitimacy of all our present governments ultimately depends.

Obviously, that role can be carried out by a non-hereditary presidency. Yet I can’t help but feel that a monarchy is a superior template, grounded as it is on a more pregnant (I use the term deliberately) metaphor. The succession of a political office is one thing, but what better way to symbolise the historical continuity of a nation, which stretches from the darkest past into the unknown future, than through the one biological continuity we all know intimately — family? In the greater scheme of things, does it really make that much difference that it’s this particular family rather than another?

Assuming that you agree with the late Whitney Houston about how ‘children are our future’ — surely squared and cubed when it comes to grandchildren and great-grandchildren — then William and Kate’s first child is certainly important to the British state. His or her arrival doesn’t simply add another name to the list of succession — it extends it by another generation. No nation likes to think it has no future, and the arrival of this particular great-grandchild will, for many, be flesh and blood proof in the here and now of how the red, white and blue of Britishness will survive potentially into the 22nd century.

Except, of course, no future is ever guaranteed; just look at the British royal family if you doubt me. The last reigning monarch to see the birth of a great-grandchild, who was also third in line to the throne, was the long-lived Queen-empress Victoria. Yet little did our ‘Mrs Brown’ suspect that this particular great-grandchild, Edward, would ultimately go down in history as the cause of a constitutional crisis which threatened the stability of the British establishment. And, incidentally, also made his then 10-year-old niece Elizabeth – herself born third in line, but with initially little expectation of succeeding to the throne – heir presumptive.

The last occasion on which I saw the present queen in the flesh was during an opening of the Scottish Parliament; for reasons not worth going into, I was part of a great procession of ‘the great and the good’ of Scotland invited to make their way down the Canongate and round past the parliament building to help commemorate the event. To be honest, I was mildly annoyed that the old dear didn’t even look in my direction as I passed, so engrossed was she in conversation with Alex Salmond at the time. Alas, I can’t lip-read, so have no proof that they were swapping betting tips on the day’s horse racing. I rather hope they were; I’d be far more concerned if they’d been discussing the actual governance of Scotland.

Salmond has made it plain he is keen to retain ‘Elizabeth, Queen of Scots’ along with her heirs, as the head of state of an independent Scotland. Some have suggested that this is simple political expediency, one of many techniques being employed by nationalists to sooth moderate voters’ concerns in the run-up to the independence referendum. I don’t think so; I believe he’s genuine in his belief that retaining the same monarch as the rest of the UK is an ideal symbol of the social – of the family – ties that will continue to exist across the British Isles.

So, despite the SNP’s – despite Scotland’s – republican tendencies, I can’t say I was surprised that Scotland’s first minister was quick off the mark to offer his ‘warmest congratulations and sincere best wishes’ to William and Kate. It was, after all, a perfect opportunity to earn some brownie points and also remind the world of the monarchy’s distinct identity in Scotland — hence his quite deliberate reference to the royal couple as the Earl and Countess of Strathearn.

As a democratically-minded sort, should that allegiance to the royal family concern me? Perhaps; but, to be honest, it doesn’t worry me nearly half as much as the arrogant presumption that Mr Salmond’s message displayed. ‘Everyone in Scotland will join me in wishing the couple the very best as they prepare for the birth of their first child,’ he wrote. Everyone? Will? Anyone who resorts to that kind of usage is clearly beginning to think they’re the absolute monarch of all they survey — and, call me naive, but the only monarch we should ever accept is one with no political power whatsoever.

Paul CockburnpicPaul F Cockburn is an Edinburgh-based freelance journalist and copywriter who specialises in the arts, culture and disability issues