Upon independence, Scotland can have their sovereignty or the ‘monarchy’; not both….

While it is premature for the Scottish government to commit to any constitutional principles prior to a Unilateral Independence Referendum, it is never too early to begin discussion on the future of the UK monarchy in an independent Scotland.

As the UK is currently constituted, only the “Queen in Parliament” is sovereign, still improbably based on the farcical, mendacious notion of divine right. The inhabitants are still mere subjects, not citizens in any meaningful sense of the word. In an independent Scotland, any constitutional or even symbolic role of the monarchy would be categorically incompatible with popular sovereignty.

In order to establish and maintain legitimacy over the long term, Scotland must eradicate recognition of both the rump UK Monarchy and the remnants of the vile, feudal aristocratic system, the ancestors of whom brought you the Highland clearances. Any Scottish ‘Duke’, ‘Earl’, ‘Viscount’, ‘Prince’, ‘Queen’ or whatever can consider themselves anything they want within their skull, but these ‘nobles’ must never be recognized by the Scottish nation for any purpose whatsoever.

In England, the aristocratic system has structured the god-awful class system, which has underpinned the rotten social hierarchy over the centuries. After the UK falls apart, Scotland can do better. There is no reason that an independent Scotland should keep any shred of this system.

It is of vital importance to finally live in a nation whose legitimacy is uniquely based on popular sovereignty. In a written constitution of an independent Scotland, including the monarchy with any constitutional and symbolic role would be ludicrous.

Enshrining the monarchy in what could become one of the most modern, dynamic, and egalitarian constitutions on earth would be ludicrous. How could one be written which denied popular sovereignty, and continue to vest it in a highly dysfunctional family? Forget it!

How could any monarch legitimately represent Scotland, whose status was genetically determined, better than an elected Scottish President? How could such a historically barbaric cabal have sovereignty over Scots?  How could any monarch legitimately grant assent to a law they likely haven’t read, have no expertise in, and likely cares about even less?

It is also vital for land reform, so that a universal land registry can be created, with the totality of Scottish territory being registered and taxed fairly, or forfeited. This would of course also be applied to the ‘crown estate’ and the withering Scottish feudal landed aristocracy, the land of which can finally be fairly allocated to the people, instead of by then a foreign potentate.

Simply put, popular sovereignty and the monarchy cannot coexist, because they are fundamentally incompatible.

So essentially, Scots will have two binary decisions to take in the coming months, for which there is no middle ground. Leave the UK and remain in the EU, or remain chained to Westminster and be dragged out of the EU. After independence, establish a Scottish Presidency legitimately elected through universal suffrage, or remained chained to the UK monarchy in perpetuity.

Would you want ‘Prince’ Chuck to be the sovereign over an independent Scotland, who frequently hung out with Jimmy Savile? D’uh.

So choose well in the coming months. There will always be scope for those sufficiently enamored of the monarchy to watch overwrought ceremonies on the BBC with absolutely insufferable ‘royal’ correspondents, and buy teapots, plates, and tea cozies with the Queens head on it, and follow the soap opera in the tabloids. Scotland must make a different choice.

Please follow and like us 🙂

8 thoughts on “Upon independence, Scotland can have their sovereignty or the ‘monarchy’; not both….

  1. Willie John

    Independence first – then we can decide on wether we even want a head of state, let alone a monarch or president. (Charlie or Donald anyone?)

  2. Peter Thomson

    You correctly point out there is a flaw at the heart of the UK’s ‘unwritten constitution’ in that the ‘crown in parliament’ is only competent under English Law and constitutional practice. Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise this concept (Lord Cooper, 1953, McCormack).

    For this to be the case Scotland would have had to have been subsumed by England under the Treaty of Union and this never was or is the case as article 19 of the Treaty of Union clearly establishes by protecting Scots Law and constitutional practice for all time where ‘all time’ means exactly that.

    There is no such beast as ‘UK Law’ only English Law and Scots Law and this whole concept of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament through this English Law device is the fallacy at the heart of the UK’s ‘unwritten constitution’.

    The UK Supreme Court when first envisaged by Blair and Derry Irvine ignored this statutory fact and the original bill had to be amended to included judges from the Court of Session as members of the UK Supreme Court panel as English Judges had no competency to make decision brought before it on Scots Law. The judges who ruled on the issue of “Named Persons” were not ‘UK’ judges but members of the Court of Sessions acting in the UK Supreme Court by election from the Court of Sessions.

    As part and parcel of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union the Claim of Right (Scotland) 1689 remains in law and it is by this Scots Law statute that Elizabeth the Second of England and Wales holds her title as ‘Queen of Scots’. The only attempt to have a legitimate ‘Union of the Crowns’ was blocked by the English and Scottish Parliaments on the occasion that James the 6th and 1st sought to have it put into law. No monarch since has sought to bring about a legal unification of the crowns. To this day it is two separate crowns on one head. The Queen took the oath for her Scottish Crown (in accordance with the 1689 Claim of Right) the night before her English Crown coronation at Westminster.

    The Elizabeth is Queen of Scots by ‘agreement’ of the sovereign Scottish people until such times as she either breaks the oath undertaken under the Claim of Right or we decide she is not ruling according to the considered will of the people of Scotland which remains paramount.

    It is possible an independent Scotland could see Chucky on the English throne by act of ‘God’ while we have his sister Annie Bananae as Queen of Scots.

    First we have to nail the idea that Westminster can tell us what to do by any sort of God given right and ensure to remind all Scottish MPs and MSPs they are bound by the considered will of the people of Scotland, a will which is paramount under Scots Law and constitutional practice.

    The funny thing is the SNP get this as was seen in the response to the ‘No’ vote in 2014 and is being seen as a result of the ‘remain’ vote in 2016. Scotland is, in modern constitutional terms, a representative democracy which is the root of the growing tension between Holyrood and Westminster because the English parties look at the SNP benches at Westminster and are reminded of this crucial constitutional point at the heart of the fallacy of the UK’s ‘unwritten constitution’ on a daily basis.

    1. Stuart McNicoll

      Agreed, Scotland is the senior kingdom since it predates England as a kingdom by 100 years, Scotland did not start using the name Scotland until the middle 11th century, to that point it as known as Alba, Gaelic for Albion. As one Irish commentator stated in the Belfast Telegraph, Scotland leave Britain, it is Britain.
      Scotland is the oldest surviving Kingdom in Europe and and in my opinion should remain so. At the negotiating table it is a formidable weapon in Scotland’s armoury.
      It does not need to retain a monarch, but it can elect a Guardian, an ancient tradition in Scotland, to represent the crown. Act as Head of State etc. If they opened parliament by reminding our representatives that they are there to serve and not to rule, it would be a good start.

  3. Sandy

    After gaining independence and getting rid of the monarchy, I’d quite like to see a ‘Feudal Titles Act’ that bans anyone from calling themselves Lord, Baron, Marquis or whatever. I find the thought of Darling, Foulkes, etc being unable to use the title they toadied so hard to gain quite satisfying.

  4. Peter A Bell

    This is one of those issue which will effectively resolve itself. To put it in a way that many will criticise as being excessively simplistic (I’m tired after the march yesterday so suck it up!), there is no way that a constitution drafted by and acceptable to the people of Scotland can possibly also be acceptable to the monarchy, and therefore to Westminster. A written constitution which explicitly rejects the supremacy of the “Crown in Parliament” and asserts the sovereignty of the people is anathema to the British establishment.

    The Scottish Constitution will make it effectively impossible for the monarchy to continue in Scotland. It will end by the choice of the relevant British institutions, without us ever having to trouble ourselves with a debate or a referendum.

  5. Charles Addison

    Canada, Australia, New Zealand: that’s you tell’t you kid on sovereign nations!

    Independence is NOT predicated on any decision regarding the monarchy. That’s historical fact not just my oppinion as a republican. I don’t believe conflating the two to be a useful tactic moving on.

  6. Bibbit

    Looking at my wee wooden ruler of Scottish History Rulers, I can see three times in Scots history when we had no monarch: ~

    1290 1292 Two Years

    1296 1306 Ten Years

    1649 1660 Eleven Years

    If we could manage for 23 years without them, seems reasonable we can also make that a permanent arrangement, if we so desire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *