Getting rid of the monarchy after independence should be a no-brainer

Supporters of the great aristocratic grift often point to the boost that the royals apparently give the tourism sector. They also mention the political “soft” power enjoyed by the late queen, which is claimed to have amounted to a level of diplomacy that ordinary politicians and mere mortals are simply incapable of.

These bold defences of the monarchy have always had a whiff of wishful thinking about them. Fake it till you make it.

Like the proponents of pyramid schemes you see on Facebook posing in front of somebody’s else’s Range Rover to try and convince you to join their “team” selling knock-off perfumes and scented wax melts.

If we didn’t take our societal cues from bees and ants and we ditched the idea of a monarchy entirely, the UK’s tourism sector would still thrive.

We could still host foreign dignitaries and build friendships with overseas leaders without the pomp and ceremony of state dinners and royal jollies abroad.

We look for the benefits in this taxpayer-funded scam because it’s easier than admitting that the crowns, palaces and curtseying is all a bit daft, when you think about it.

But to give credit where it is due, we probably do owe the royal family a debt of gratitude for the sheer entertainment their dysfunctionality has given us over the last few weeks.

Prince Harry’s autobiography, Spare, will be released this week. Leaked extracts from the memoir have dominated the headlines in recent days. The tidbits we have been treated to so far show the Prince hasn’t held back in his revelations about his close family members.

READ MORE: Prince Harry says the King was jealous of Meghan in memoir leak

One of my favourite leaks to date was the description of a fight that took place between Harry and William, in which Harry says that the next in line to the throne “grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and … knocked me to the floor”.

It’s hardly the most dramatic fight to ever take place between siblings. These things happen. Family members argue and sometimes get into fights. But these descriptions of the ordinary dynamics of family life do help to highlight the fact there is nothing special about the Windsors.

Their unique status in society wasn’t earned. They have gained their trinkets and baubles and overblown egos because they have been told that an accident of birth makes them better than the citizens they rule over.

Harry’s book is set to heap further embarrassment upon King Charles. Which is saying a lot, given we’ve all read the transcripts of the steamy phone calls he had with his then mistress Camilla.

Harry’s critics have condemned him for revealing family secrets for a hefty fee. They say that – along with his wife – he has caused perhaps irreparable damage to the stability of the royal family. And to that I say – so what?

READ MORE: Prince Harry 'killed 25 people in Afghanistan'

If they can only exist in a space that is free from mockery and contempt, then that in itself is proof that the whole concept is a sham.

In his book, Prince Harry reveals details about his feud with both the current king and the next. He speaks about his previous drug use and gives excruciatingly awkward details of how he lost his virginity.

He has pulled back the veil and exposed what should be patently obvious to all right-minded people.

The royal family are no better than the people that must kneel and bow in their presence. One day Prince William is wrestling his brother to the floor, breaking a dog food bowl in the process, and the next he’s striding down a palace corridor while the cleaner pauses in deference to let him pass.

Over the next few months, the conversation about independence and a de-facto referendum will begin again in earnest.

It is understandable that, at the moment, the process by which we can secure our say on Scotland’s future is at the forefront of everybody’s minds. But I am really looking forward to being past that point and on to the important stuff – where we debate the differing visions for what an independent Scotland should look like.

There is a squeamishness among some independence-supporting politicians about being seen to be too stringently anti-royal.

The SNP’s position remains – as it was in 2014 – that an independent Scotland would retain the monarch as head of state in an independent Scotland.

While we might initially carry on the tradition of silly crowns and curtseying, it would ultimately be up to voters in Scotland to decide whether they wanted that situation to continue. And surely it’s a no-brainer?

Antiquated systems of privilege, unearned wealth and hereditary titles shouldn’t be something that we seek to emulate in an independent Scotland.