LESLEY J Findlay’s letter (June 4) supporting the continuation of a royal family in an independent Scotland seems to be based on the somewhat dubious assertions that presidents of republics tend to be rogues and that people, in her opinion, prefer monarchies as they have families and are essentially just like ordinary folks.

Her sweeping generalisations aside, Ms Findlay should consider that European republics like Ireland, Italy and Germany all enjoy the democratic right of being able to vote for their president yet the UK is still wedded to a ridiculously archaic system wherein an allegedly apolitical constitutional monarch acts as head of state. The monarch and her extended family are beneficiaries of inherited wealth and privilege that have no place in any 21st-century democratic country, indeed they resemble typical families as much as the Corleones, the Borgias or the Kardashians do.

READ MORE: There is no evidence to suggest an independent Scotland would be a republic

We have seen from recent evidence that the royal family cannot be described as “above politics” in any shape or form. Whether through the use of the arcane Queen’s Consent to protect them from legislation that would affect their financial interests or placing themselves above laws that promote equality in employment for all people irrespective of race or religion, it is clear that the royal family exert a self-serving influence that is beyond their constitutional role.

Prince William’s recent ill-judged meeting with the risible Gordon Brown and the shameless and unambiguous Tory manipulation of the monarchy to launch an anti-independence charm offensive have resulted in the royal family being viewed as most definitely on one side of the independence debate and therefore redundant when Scotland becomes an independent country.

It’s time to abandon this antediluvian, forelock-tugging fealty to royalty in favour of a genuinely socially democratic and inclusive state. It can’t come quickly enough.

Owen Kelly
Stirling

SORRY, Lesley – I don’t agree that the house of Windsor doesn’t take sides in politics. But the fairest thing would be to have a referendum on the monarchy – after indy has been secured.

Tim Warner
via thenational.scot

I WAS entertained by Bill Craig’s Friday letter about the “not proven” verdict, which brought several memories sharply to mind.

As a young law student I had the dubious privilege of witnessing one of the last death sentences handed down by a Scottish court. Everyone knew it would be commuted, for the Abolition Bill was due for its third reading in the Lords, but it was an experience which fair focused my mind on the awesome power of the law.

READ MORE: Case for ditching Scottish verdict option has not been proven

Years later, as an assessor in Paisley District Court, having heard both sides in a trial, I retired to chambers with a very distinguished justice and carefully reviewed the evidence and his various options until he nodded his wise head and said, “Aye, fine.” We returned to the bench and the accused stood nervously before us. “Right, son,” said the justice, “I find you not guilty, but dinna dae it again.” It precisely confirmed my own view of the case.

KM Campbell
Doune

I WOULD like to add to the arguments set out by Bill Craig and Richard Russell. The problem between guilty/not guilty and proven/not proven is that these terms reflect entirely different questions. In simple terms the idea of guilty/not guilty is a moral, or philosophical one, where there can be degrees of correctness. However, the terms proven/not proven are legal terms, depending on the competence of the prosecution to submit proof.

This can be seen in answering the following questions. Is the defendant guilty? Yes. Why? Because the prosecution has proven the case. Is the defendant not guilty? Yes. Why? Because the prosecution has not proven the case.

Clearly the basic question is whether or not the prosecution has proved or failed to prove the case. Consequently, the way forward is to abolish the verdicts of guilty and not guilty, and revert to the more logical and accurate proven and not proven.

Donald MacRae
Paisley

THE arguments put forward by Richard Russell and Bill Craig for reverting to the proven/not proven verdicts are overwhelmingly strong if Scots law is to have only two verdicts. If one of the three verdicts presently available to a jury is to go – as it probably should – then it should be “not guilty” that goes, and “guilty” should be changed to “proven”.

Near the end of his article of June 1, Hamish MacPherson writes: “Had forensic science not been in its infancy in 1857, I have no doubt that Madeleine Smith would have hanged for the murder of her former lover.” In other words, the jury would have been presented with forensic evidence strong enough to have convinced them that Smith had committed murder. This is, despite Mr MacPherson’s conclusion to the contrary, an argument for “proven” and “not proven” being the best options available to a jury.

James Robertson
via thenational.scot