THE recent over-the-top celebrations of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee have inevitably brought out republican sentiments among many, and an independent Scotland will certainly have to consider the position of head of state in due course.
Scotland is often compared to other smaller European countries and, as an independent country, we will hope to emulate the best of them. It is significant that many of the best-run countries in Europe are monarchies, examples being Norway, Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Belgium, and, further afield, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
READ MORE: What has the Queen said about Scottish independence?
All these are peaceful democracies so monarchy is clearly no barrier to such a state. The problem with elected heads of state is that, inevitably, the head of state is a divisive figure with a considerable part of the electorate united in their dislike of him or her. (Imagine a President Boris Johnson.) And in extreme cases only a republic can have a Putin, a Trump, a Bolsonaro or even a Hitler as head of state. Despite the nonsense with which the English surround the Queen, monarchy keeps the position of head of state out of the hands of over-ambitious politicians and perhaps a slimmed-down monarchy would be the best system for Scotland.
James Duncan
Edinburgh
IT’S nauseating, absolutely nauseating, the television coverage of the platinum jubilee. All the usual drooling sycophantic snivelling toadies have featured on television news programmes. Hugo Vickers, Jennie Bond, Nicholas Witchell, Ingrid Seward and Gyles Brandreth, all trying to outdo each other in their use of superlatives in describing the queen and the monarchy. Every television presenter lavishes even more praise, if it is possible, on the royals with big Cheshire cat smiles on their faces. Every one of them is using the highly presumptuous line that EVERYONE is enjoying the platinum jubilee.
Sandy Gordon
Edinburgh
I AGREE with Jim Taylor that the appearance of the Code of Conduct in the Progress to Yes event is a little arrogant (‘A Yes movement code of conduct is not what we need to make progress’, May 31) Given that the different pro-independence parties do not have the same views on gender, it also clarified which political parties would be involved in the Yes movement and which would not: SNP/Greens in, Independence for Scotland Party and Alba out.
READ MORE: A Yes movement code of conduct is not what we need to make progress
But I differ from him on his assertion that issues such as trans policies “are hardly relevant for debate during the process”. On the contrary, they are crucial to the debate for a number of reasons.
First, it is an example of a chosen and voted-for Scottish Government elevating what is not supposed to be their raison d’etre to being their most important priority, which is not a good template for a future Scottish Government. Don’t forget, the referendum bill is still not tabled, but gender reform is in the consultation phase. If women do not fight this now, and have to wait for a new Scottish “administration” (his word), we could be looking at a decade before we even revisit the question.
It is crucial, as women are looking at this and thinking the Scottish Government can’t be trusted with a tea fund, never mind governing a country. It is crucial because half the population are being told by said government that our views are “just not valid”, with no addressing of the specific problems we have identified. We are just being dismissed.
It is also a sobering thought that the only defence for the women of Scotland is the British Equality Act. The irony is not lost. The attack on women, coupled with the ongoing transport debacles, the abandonment of the plan for a nationally owned energy company, the lukewarm laws surrounding Airbnb registration, the lack of rent controls with any teeth, is turning people off the idea of independence.
The emergence of a self-appointed group “leading” the Yes movement is a worry when they are obviously partisan. They want us to be respectful, but they exclude (as far as I can see) the two new pro-indy parties. Not so respectful or inclusive.
Julia Pannell
Friockheim, Tayside
A RECENT YouGov poll showed that 59% of 2748 people surveyed thought the PM should resign, and 74% thought he knowingly lied about breaking lockdown rules. So 41% – 1126 of these folk – think he should stay, and 26% – a quarter of them – don’t think he lied? (We leave it to the reader to decide if they are dumb, delusional or liars themselves.) But of greater concern, and the real threat to democracy, is that 15% agree that he is a liar but want him to remain as leader of the UK.
Our need for independence is now urgent, and with it a constitution that enshrines citizens assemblies with the authority to hold to account our elected representatives – who are also, let us not forget, our employees.
CE Ayr, Cavalaire sur Mer, France and Jenne Gray, Ayr
DENNIS Skinner is purported to have told the chamber that 50% of the Tories opposite were crooks. His response to the Speaker’s demand that he withdraw the accusation (whether it happened or not) still makes us laugh.
“I withdraw,” said Dennis, so the story goes. “Half of the Tories opposite are not crooks!”
But Dennis was quite wrong! The percentage is far far higher. Defending or protecting a crook, when you know him to be one, when you go to his crooked parties, is crookedness in its own right. The Tories will pay for this.
Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt, Argyll
QUESTIONS for next years Maths A level examination have been leaked.
Q1. If Boris has dug a hole 1760 yards deep, how deep is the hole in French, and to the nearest ton, cwt, lb, and oz, calculate exactly how much shit Boris is in.
Cal Waterson
Lennoxtown
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here