PRIOR to the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence we were officially informed by Buckingham Palace that the Queen remained firmly “above politics” and would not be drawn into the independence debate. Self-interest and tradition obviated her sincere wish for the Union to prevail, and it was no surprise to hear former Prime Minister David Cameron speak of the monarch “purring down the phone” on learning of the result of the referendum.

Fast forward to 2021 and the Queen’s supposed role of studied neutrality has been utterly discredited. Evidence from the National Archives would strongly suggest that she, and indeed Prince Charles, have utilised an arcane procedure known as “Queen’s Consent” to vet the content of literally hundreds of bills in order to approve them before they are passed to the Houses of Parliament. The vast majority of these bills were scrutinised through the Queen’s Consent process to ensure they would not affect the personal wealth or private interests of the royal family and ranged from fox hunting to pensions and inheritance laws.

READ MORE: Queen's aide lobbied to ensure monarch avoids national traffic rules

The implications for parliamentary democracy of this process, which differs from the rubber-stamping of Royal Assent, are of deep concern. A British constitutional monarch has the right to “be consulted, advise and to warn”, but the opaque procedure that is Queen’s Consent goes far beyond this as it places the Queen firmly in the political arena and reeks of naked self-interest and breathtaking hypocritical entitlement.

In deciding on the future of the monarchy in an independent Scotland we may well hold a separate referendum. It is transparently clear which way we should vote if we want to live in an equal, inclusive and socially democratic state in the future where inherited wealth and unjust privilege are tossed into the dustbin of history.

Owen Kelly
Stirling

WITH talk of another referendum, we might recall some multi-option polls. Westminster allowed Newfoundland to have a three-option ballot in 1948, so the UK precedent has already been set. Singapore and Puerto Rico also had three options in the 60s.

Maybe the best was in Guam in 1982: it offered a choice of six options, and a seventh was left blank so that anyone who wanted to (campaign and) vote for their own idea could do exactly that. Pluralism is possible. Complicated? Not at all: on a second-round turnout of 91%, the invalid vote was 0.85%.

The SNP argued for a three-option referendum in 1997 and, initially, in 2014. Have they now changed their mind?

In debating the multi-option question of their electoral system in 1992, New Zealand tasked an independent commission to draw up a ballot; it opted for five options. And in a two-round vote, the winner was a form of PR. (If the UK had enjoyed a similar degree of pluralism in 2011, maybe we too would have chosen PR … a coalition government … and no Brexit!)

But we are where we are; in a mess. Nevertheless, if Scotland now organised a multi-option poll, maybe its commission could debate such positive ideas as a W-I-S-E (Wales-Ireland-Scotland-England) Federation, and maybe help to solve the Irish problem at the same time.

Peter Emerson
Director, The de Borda Institute, Belfast

THERE’S a conversation going around that the independence movement needs a short, sharp soundbite about independence, much like Trump’s “drain the swamp!” Something to be repeated far and wide among the Yes movement, the SNP and all other folk who are striving for to independence.

I’d like to suggest a famous quote from the French poet Victor Hugo, who said: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come!” To this I would add: “It’s Scotland’s time!”. This can be quoted at every opportunity, every interview, every soundbite, every SNP party political broadcast. It could even be made into a short film comparing it to many other brilliant ideas whose time had come, like penicillin and the NHS for example.

Iain McClafferty
Livingston

JOANNA Cherry, in her outburst likening her “sacking” to the Salem witch trials, is right to say that the SNP is bigger than any individual. However, her language, register and allusions are becoming mildly hysterical to say the least.

A QC uses clarity and points germane to the issue. Where is the evidence beyond reasonable doubt to liken the event to a witch trial? There is none! She is not comparing like with like! No-one has been burnt at the stake.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry says she does not want to be SNP leader and may quit politics

We have heard her use epithets like “Stalinist” and now the allusion to witch trials. By all means pursue the issues she is bringing up and raising, but these irrational outbursts are not the way to continue.

The SNP is bigger than its individuals, and that includes all of them!

John Edgar
Kilmaurs

KEVIN McKenna is surely having a joke (Forbes’s decision to snub publishers could come back to haunt her party, February 10). Why in heck’s name would an SNP government provide assistance to publications whose major enterprise is a daily vicious and unbalanced assault on the SNP and Scottish Government?

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: SNP decision to snub newspapers may come back to haunt them

That would be rather like the Russian Government making sure the US bases all around Russia were fully stocked up with their nuclear missiles.

David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll

UNIONIST journalists of the Mail and Express will be very grateful that Kevin McKenna cares that they prosper. Will those self-same journalists now rush to the aid of those trapped on Universal Credit?

Bob Cotton
via thenational.scot