ANOTHER excellent article from George Kerevan this week (Why the monarchy should have no place in Scotland post-independence, April 12). He makes a lot of points that I agree with although I would not be quite so vehement.

For instance, I stood at church on Sunday for the one minute’s silence for the Prince. He certainly did a fair bit for Scotland while acting as the Chancellor of Edinburgh University, so I have no qualms about showing him a bit of respect for that. But when you think about it, Sir Sean Connery passed away fairly recently and we didn’t have a minute’s silence for him, yet he also did a fair bit for Scotland in support of independence and raising awareness of Scotland around the world.

READ MORE: George Kerevan: Why the monarchy should have no place in Scotland post-independence

The other thing we have to consider is that the royal family is the English royal family – not the Scottish royal family. The Queen was crowned as the Queen of England at a ceremony in Westminster Abbey, but there was no such service in Scotland. She chose not to be crowned Queen of Scotland, like many of her predecessors had also done. Instead, she wandered casually into St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh and merely touched each of the “Honours of Scotland” that had been laid out for her. This was to indicate her supremacy over Scotland but not to recognise herself as the Scottish queen. The last Scottish monarch to be crowned here was King Charles II in 1649.

Since we have done without a formal monarch for all of that time, it would not hurt us to carry on that tradition in a Scottish republic. When we become independent from rUK, we will in effect be separating from England. It could no longer be called the United Kingdom. That was the Union formed in 1603 between England and Scotland when James VI of Scotland became next in line to the English crown. As neither Wales nor Northern Ireland has a monarch, it can no longer be a United Kingdom. It can’t very well be united with itself. If we are no longer united with England, we won’t need their royal family. Perhaps an elected president could replace them as Scottish head of state. But do we need one?

Certainly, keep an apartment available for the use of the English royal family in Holyrood Palace, but charge Westminster for their use of it! Balmoral is different; it actually belongs to them. I’m very sure they will still be welcome to come here on holiday if they so desire. However, they will be foreign dignitaries and not members of the Scottish royal family. As such we could do away with the Royal Company of Archers and its associated pageantry; or, if this is to be allowed to continue, we could charge it to Westminster. It will be their Queen and their ceremony so they can pay for it. Why should we?

The same with the Duke of Hamilton. The Holyrood suite is there for his use if he requires it, but after independence he can start paying for it when or if he uses it. We could even make it available for visiting foreign presidents – for a suitable fee!

Maybe, as George implies, we will be able to get rid of the “them and us” type of society that we presently have to endure. In today’s modern age, we should be more concerned about the poor folks around this world. Children starving to death in Africa and being bombed out of their homes in Yemen are the people we should be worried about providing for – not millionaires who just happen to be close relatives of royalty.

I would like to see an Independent Republic of Scotland being a fairer, more equal country in which the difference between rich and poor is substantially reduced and where, when you go out to work, you can earn enough to support your family without having to rely on food banks or worry about heating your home. Discontinuing the royal family as heads of state could be our “starter for ten”!

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes