MOST of us have been taking at least a little time out to recall with respect a prince who successfully blended benign intentions with actual good works, so I don’t want to sully those memories with any more partisan political thoughts.

All I’d say is that a few years from now we may get a vote to decide whether Scotland should remain a monarchy. Our monarchy dates from the time of Kenneth MacAlpin, who united the Scots and the Picts, probably by force, in about 843. His royal line continues down to the present day. Prince Philip married into it, and was a credit to it. To many, history is of no interest or use beyond the classroom. But, as a historian myself, I do attach importance to it.

Historical studies show us what Scottishness consists of in different circumstances, and how it develops from age to age. The more adventurous historians might go from that to produce forecasts for the future, which they publish for the benefit of readers of The National.

Most of us, however, are reluctant to do that at any given point – too often, we soon see how wrong we might have been! On the other hand, we are usually eager to preserve what we can of the past. The problem here is to work out a good understanding in a country that loves heroes and heroines (or the opposite) together with the legends surrounding them. For that the historian can earn some merit, if not much reward.

A monarchy that has survived for more than 1000 years is by any standards a successful monarchy. In Scotland, its main achievement has been to provide a focus round which a nation can unite, and in that sense the monarchy of Scotland is the oldest of the national institutions.

It offered the necessary focus for the Church, the law, the language, the literature, the cultural tradition, the social structure. It brought them all together and shaped the nation for the centuries when this nationhood was at its strongest. So strong was it that it survived the end of Scotland’s legal independence in 1707. Even now, legal independence can be resumed if we want it to be, and some people may vote for that because they want the monarchy as well.

This institution of monarchy has drawbacks too, just like aspects of any society. Despite its flaws, often connected with the personal failings of the royal family, it does its job and provides what it is meant to provide, a solid human basis for nationhood. This last weekend, people were recalling for a moment all sorts of entertaining quirks in Prince Philip, which we can enjoy for the last time before we forget him and them.

We learned that he was against Scottish devolution – not a surprising fact, given his age and experience. By contrast, we learned also that Prince Charles supported devolution, at least in the 1990s. Perhaps a time is approaching when minor facts like this may affect the fate of the nation. Let’s note how a monarchy that is human, all too human, can accommodate individual deviations without damage to greater things. For a republic with an elected head of state it might be almost impossible to find a man or woman incapable of offending one body of citizens or another.

If we were having a presidential election on May 6, we might find candidates in Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Anas Sarwar, Willie Rennie and Patrick Harvie. We could find Alex Salmond and George Galloway standing, too. Scotland is not a country where political enemies are readily forgiven, and I don’t think any of these would be a better head of state than a monarch who, in the modern UK tradition, has no enemies. It is a different matter for the common man or woman. The Scottish Parliament has been functioning since 1999, and already it is noticeable how easily within it rational discussion gives way to mere polemics.

WE don’t hear much in the way of what might be called political philosophy. On the contrary, Holyrood is primarily a pork-barrel. Its politics consists of hand-outs. SNP and Labour compete in terms of subsidies for this or that public purpose, or favours for fellow politicians. The Tories follow suit – at least they have the excuse that they are only imitating what Boris Johnson does in London.

For an appreciation of how far we can go astray, I’d like to pick out the widespread assumption that all these goodies falling from the hand of the state have something to do with socialism. Again, this is a subject hardly ever discussed by its proponents, and my column’s attempts to draw them out have on the whole not got far.

The present government entertains many socialist ideas, without claiming to be in any formal sense socialist. Rather, political correctness is its great guideline, fixated on equality of class, gender and other fashionable watchwords of our time.

When former MP George Kerevan and others announced their defection to Alba, they actually said this was because Nicola Sturgeon had drifted to the right, so far as to compromise and dilute her party’s connection to the Scottish working class. Kerevan reported to his readers: “We have now concluded that our attempts both at winning the SNP genuine radical, anti-market policies and in democratising the party’s internal life have been thwarted.”

Yet among the policies Sturgeon has been proposing and carrying out are high public expenditure, nationalisation and the political direction of private investment. Which other right-wing parties in any foreign country of today propose such policies for themselves? In fact these are socialist policies. And, except in name, they make the SNP a socialist party.

A policy statement from the First Minister renders this fact more explicit, though again without mentioning socialism. She stressed how her Government “must seek to advance equality and protect human rights in everything it does … options for action must be assessed to see whether they promote equality, and … in rebuilding Scotland’s economy, we must seek to overcome inequality and advance human wellbeing.”

In fact the quest for equality will delay emergence from coronavirus. One way out of it will come from revival of Scottish capitalism, as individual entrepreneurs, responding against the unpredictable background, still push successful initiatives that earn a fortune, in pharmaceutics as in other goods.

Beneficial effects spread and after a few years we will see we have a new economy yet again, and one with a powerful head of steam. How else have all our historical economic crises been put to rights? It is something successful individuals must do, ahead of less successful individuals and careless of whether government likes it or not.

Equality is impossible in such conditions because economics doesn’t work like that. Some entrepreneurs position themselves better than others. Some are at the front and some lag behind. Some have more stamina than others. Some have more luck than others.

Every race finds winners and losers. What we cannot demand of all is equality. If we insist on equality then the whole scene will merely be average and mediocre, proceeding at a slower pace than it could have done, and so making sure Scotland stays behind other nations.