Royalist is our post-Brexit religion

Callistemon

GrannyRose15

Alegrias1

Hope springs eternal Grany. One day!

Well you won't need to worry will you, or is an independent Scotland going to adopt a monarch?

Apparently, so I learnt on here, yes, HM would still be Head of State of an independent Scotland.
But why?

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.

I'm not being funny Callistemon, but I really am surprised by the number of people who think that Scotland going independent means we won't have the Queen.

I'm going to use "we" to represent people who want independence, I know that's not everyone in Scotland.

The Union that independence would dissolve is the Union of the Parliaments, 1707. The Union of the Crowns dates back to 1603 when James VI took over the crown of England. There is no suggestion at the moment that we change the system of government, only that we have an independent Parliament with the same powers as the Parliaments in any other country. Canada, Australia etc all have their own independent Parliaments but have the Queen as Head of State.

Personally, I'd like to see a Republic, but most Scots don't. One step at a time

Alegrias1

Rosie51

Ordinary citizens will be able to take part in the process of choosing our head of state and even put themselves forward for the job.

Seriously? You really think Jenny from number 61 has a chance of being elected when over 99% of the voters have no idea who Jenny is? In order to be "known" enough to get elected you'd need to be either very rich (to fund the necessary advertising), or already famous. Rules out most of us I'd say. We don't even elect unknown independents to be our MPs, and rarely even to be local councillors. That will largely result in most of the candidates being ex MPs, actors, sportspeople or well-known heads of companies.

I have a list.

Apologies to those who have seen it before.

David Attenborough (Probably too old to be interested now)
Jocelyn Bell Burnell
Tim Berners Lee
Prof Sarah Gilbert
Prof Dame Anne Glover
William Windsor (open to all, see)

No ex MPS, actors, sportspeople or heads of companies.

Now, just to decide how to persuade them to stand...

And definitely no Jenny from number 61 or other unknown ordinary person on your list. Care to say how likely you think Jenny would have a chance of being elected?
I apologise for not making myself clear, I imagined most of the people putting themselves forward for such a post would come from the categories I listed. I did not mean to imply only those categories would be represented, I thought my use of the word largely would suffice.

Jenny from Gogglebox might have a chance.

What even though she's not from your list of 2 Sirs, 2 Dames, one Professor and a Prince? Never watched gogglebox so have no idea, but she'd hardly be a totally unknown ordinary person who grany said could put themselves forward.

The Scots wouldn't need to adopt a monarch (if they want one) because HM Queen Elizabeth is already Queen of Scotland independently of being Queen of England. The UK is the United Kingdom , that is the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, which joined together in 1603. If they separated again, they would be two separate kingdoms again. Whether the Scots would choose to keep her as monarch is up to them.

She would, of course be Elizabeth 2nd of England and 1st of Scotland. Good Queen Bess was never Queen of Scotland.

Well maybe not Jenny But if one of the Siddiquis stood I'd probably vote for him.

Grany didn't say unknown, she said ordinary. All the people on my list are ordinary, except for W. Windsor. The others all got to where they are because of their own efforts. Being a Professor doesn't mean you're not ordinary, it usually means you're at the top of your game. 4 of my list are Professors, my fault for not giving them their full titles.

In my utopian Britain there wouldn't be any Sirs/Dames either, so we wouldn't have to worry about that.

What about Jenny from the Block?

Ah a top of your game ordinary person, not a milkman or office worker ordinary person, I get it now. I think footballers are usually ordinary people who are just famous because they're top of their game. In my utopian Britain there wouldn't be any Sirs/Dames either, not a position shared by all but one of your selection since they've accepted such titles.

Yes, I was sooooo disappointed in them.

What about Gary Lineker? I might be inclined to vote for him. Or Marcus Rashford.

If an office worker wants to put themselves forward, and has the waving and smiling qualifications, go them.

In a Utopian Britain, every one of its citizens would be both eligible and suitable for being head of state, and could do the job admirably. They would all be knowledgeable about the constitution, the legal system and the laws of the country, the values and customs of each of the many faiths, and the sensibilities of everyone from the many backgrounds and cultures which make up the diverse and dynamic population. They would be confident and sensitive enough to engage with the governments of other countries without either kowtowing to bullies or resorting to browbeating, have sufficient private funds to avoid the temptation to use their position to acquire more (but not so much that they forget how little others may have) and have the moral stature to keep out of scandalous activities.

I am not sure how we will achieve this Utopia, but I have been told that it will follow our conversion into a Republic.

Rosie The orginal object of the granting of titles like Sir or Dame was to indicate that the recipient is at the top of their game, or has some other achievement or public service. Excluding someone for having one of these honours implies that the individual is some kind of brown-noser who has concentrated their abilities on aiming. to get it. That is not logical.

Elegran

It's so simple.
In theory

Elegran I think you'll find in our Brave New Britain it will only be extraordinary ordinary people who will qualify to be our esteemed leader. Postmen, hairdressers, shop assistants need not apply. But it will be perfect!

Elegran

Rosie The orginal object of the granting of titles like Sir or Dame was to indicate that the recipient is at the top of their game, or has some other achievement or public service. Excluding someone for having one of these honours implies that the individual is some kind of brown-noser who has concentrated their abilities on aiming. to get it. That is not logical.

That was the original object, but I'm not sure about now. I didn't say I would exclude anybody, I just don't think 99.99% of the population would even be considered, so not the egalitarian solution we're told a republic would provide.

All ordinary people are considered equal, but some are more equal than others.

We should try our hardest to get a change to the voting system in the UK before we think about becoming a republic.

I was watching a rerun of Portillo on Dutch railways last night. He was talking to a parlimentarian at the Hague about their voting system. The Dutchman explained that would achieve a consensus and that there were no strong parties to force through legislation. Consensus politics seems a good idea to me. That way we wouldn't have policies such as the building of HS2 decided upon when probably half the country doesn't want it.

By the way, I do accept that Labour and the Tories have been equally as bad.

We should certainly get rid of the House of Lords that’s an anachronism all of its own.

vegansrock

We should certainly get rid of the House of Lords that’s an anachronism all of its own.

I don't know, I've rather warmed to the House of Lords in the last few years. At least they seem to be quite sane and work in the interests of the UK.

My mother was a confirmed royalist (dad thought they were a waste of space) and as I love history and biography, I was never really for a republic. Until the last few years.
This family, from what I've seen, live in some bygone era, William included. Once I became a parent, I was horrified that Charles and Anne were left in UK for 6 months without parents, Charles forced to go to a school where he was bullied and humiliated. He is a strange man.
Even when they do meet ordinary people, it's a sanitised version. When the Queen came to my school, all the walls she'd see were painted especially! And specially chosen kids and lessons.
No I don't want to have these people as my future heads of state.

Grany

I will say this again. A president would cost a fraction of the monarchy which stands at £345 million and rising. But it's not just the cost it's the principle.

A president would have to be political neutral unlike the monarchy who has a veto on our laws.

Something like the president in Ireland or

Or like our Bundes President here in Germany. A very well respected figure head, whose sole purpose is to welcome foreign heads of state, represent Germany abroad and sign his/her name on bills which have passed both houses. The only difference between Michael D. Higgins and our president, Frank-Walther Steinmaier, is that MDH was elected by the electorate, whereas Steinmaier was nominated by and elected by our elected representatives in the Bundestag. The roles are the same though and both do an excellent job, IMO. The fact that they have limited terms of office is a good thing too. The Monarchie in the UK is a waste of space and money and is an anachronism in the 21st century.

This explains the Monarch role, an elected President would certainly be politically biased. Merkel CDU, Biden Democrat, Morrison, Liberal Party, Arden NZ Labour Party,
royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/the-queens-consent-and-legislative-veto-powers-explained-155588/

Alegrias1

GrannyRose15

An independent Scotland would still have the Queen as head of state. She's our Queen too. You know, like Australia, Canada....

The complete lack of understanding of constitutional matters on here is quite worrying.

But surely you can choose not to have her or any monarchy. That's one of the perks of being independent isn't it?

There is no suggestion that we would chose another form of government - Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland. For a while, at least.

Of course the UK as a whole can choose not to have her or any monarchy. I don't think its necessarily a perk of being in an independent Scotland, we (UK) could choose it now if we wanted.

We all have our own idea of what Utopia looks like. It's real life that causes more problems.

Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland.

How do you know this for sure?

This explains the Monarch role, an elected President would certainly be politically biased. Merkel CDU, Biden Democrat, Morrison, Liberal Party, Arden NZ Labour Party,

Morrison is the Prime Minister of Australia. Head of State - the Queen

Ardern is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Head of State - the Queen