THE Queen’s death is a family tragedy and it is true that the Queen herself was popular with much of the British public. Queen Elizabeth was steadfast in doing her duties right up to the end of her life and never got involved in the world of politics, being a proper constitutional monarch. She was the glue that held the British state together.
I believe as a Scottish independence supporter that with the Queen’s passing the British state is likely to fragment, in that in Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants will increasingly see their future as being part of a United Ireland within the European Union and the people of Scotland will want Scottish independence to escape the clear and marked decline of the British state because of Brexit and the massive inequalities that have developed in Britain, especially during the current cost-of-living crisis.
READ MORE: Liz Truss to join King Charles on tour of the UK for services of reflection
We are living in turbulent times where people are increasingly vulnerable and poor and they cannot in Scotland identify with the Tory-dominated British state and a Truss government that champions inequality and the further enrichment of the ruling elite. The monarchy as an institution itself is likely to be viewed as an out-of-date anachronism that is not fit for the 21st century, especially with the rapid increase in poverty and inequality in Scotland.
It may turn out that I am wrong about the monarchy and that Scotland becomes an independent nation and decides to retain the monarchy, but with Elizabeth’s passing I am of the belief that we will witness seismic changes to the Union.
Sean Clerkin
Barrhead
AS a firm republican I am usually not interested in 95% of the media comments about the monarchy. However, this has now dramatically changed, as I am now very interested in the role of our new King Charles III, indeed this seems to me to be an excellent test of the validity of the concept of the monarchy in the UK constitution.
According to the English legal conception of sovereignty, sovereign power rests with “The King in Parliament” and no act of parliament can become law until it receives Royal Assent.
READ MORE: Protester arrested at King Charles's Edinburgh proclamation
Now we all know that our present king, Charles III, is personally strongly committed to protecting the environment, because he has made that clear for years, long before this became a popular cause.
The new Truss government, however, has an entirely different position. Liz Truss wants to encourage the burning of fossil fuels, and to start fracking for gas in England. It is hard to imagine anything more damaging to the environment and the vital interests of the English people than to start fracking in England. This would cause pollution to underground water reserves which are desperately needed for England’s future water supplies.
So now is the real test for monarchy. If the ignorant and incompetent Truss government passes legislation in the Westminster parliament to bring in fracking in England, will King Charles give Royal Assent to such a bill? Now Royal Assent has not been withheld since 1707, but will it be withheld for this?
READ MORE: King Charles III formally proclaimed King at Accession Council
If he sticks to his principles and does this, Charles will be acting in the best interests of the English people and will be able to demonstrate that, and he could call for a referendum to decide on this issue if he was charged with being undemocratic.
If he does as expected, and gives Royal Assent to such a bill, then he will be demonstrating that the “monarch” is a sham; that it is used by the establishment to reinforce their rule, as of course many of us have always known.
However, the establishment could be exposed if Charles has the courage of his convictions and refuses to give Royal Assent to any bill he believes to be damaging to the environment and the long-term interests of the English people. If he did that, the UK establishment would be in a real mess.
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
I RESPECT those mourning the death of the Queen but question the need for 10 days of official mourning. The Queen, it seems to me, had a wonderful, carefree life, well looked after, even having “a new dress every day”! She was lucky to meet many wonderful people and in carrying out these duties she was well reimbursed. Yes, it is important for those who wish to respect and mourn the death of the Queen that they are able to do so, but 10 days?
The political chattering classes are mourning for 10 days and little work will take place. Autumn conferences are being cancelled and sports cancelled. For most of us life goes on, and for many their lives in these present grim times are anything but carefree and wonderful.
Jan Ferrie
South Ayrshire
THE excess deaths figure looks certain to drop – apparently, only one person died on Thursday.
Peter Barjonas
Caithness
I CANNOT be alone in being affronted by the proposal that the Stone of Destiny be removed from Scotland to London for the forthcoming coronation of King Charles III. Edward I of England in his rampages through Scotland seized the Stone specifically so that he could place it humiliatingly under his own throne as a lasting and insulting symbol of the subjugation of a recalcitrant Scotland which had fiercely resisted his suzerainty.
READ MORE: Stone of Destiny to be moved to London for new King's coronation
Much was made of the return of the Stone to Scotland in 1996 as a token of respect for the Scottish nation. Surely King Charles would do well to avoid repeating the insult and humiliation of the symbolism intended by Edward Longshanks. Indeed, his own respect for our nation would be greatly enhanced if he were to decline to have the Stone reinstalled under the coronation throne.
Richard Allison
Edinburgh
THANK you to The National for a most appropriate front page on Friday.
Grace Chilles
via email
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel