Monarchy - Good or Bad for Scotland?

[michele_grayhickinbotham]

As one who lives in a country as a result of the problem with the monarchy,I feel that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be free and independent. As bad as the IRA is, the British Army and government behind them isn't any better. In some instances since the seperation in 1922, the British have provoked a great deal of the violence in Northern Ireland. While researching a paper on the topic, my attitude changed a great deal. Countries can share the same borders with different philosophies and still co-exsist.

England has not really been a world power since World War II. Although they continue to act like one by constantly getting into the face of the Irish and the Scots. Who wish to have self rule without interference.

The monarchy doesn't have the power it once had. And I don't think much of Prince Charles. Prince William,if he doesn't act like his father, may not be to bad.But I don't live in England and it's up to their people to decide what they want.However, The Irish and the Scots aught to be given that same choice.

I can't say much for Tony Blair , but then again I can't say much for Bill Clinton either. And I've had to live with his behavior for almost eight years.

But my ancestors are from Ireland and Scotland. And I still have family in Ireland. If they waish to live "English Free" then they should be able to.

Sorry I got off unto a rant.
Michele

[McBeaty]

Originally posted by Neil Caple:
...you must then ask what form the new state should take before it actually comes into being.

Very good point Neil...

I too am a Republican, but I differ in that I left the SNP precisly because of thier provarication and procrastination over the monarchy question.

I have my own personal vision for a future Scotland, like all Scots do, in my case it is a INDEPENDANT Democratic Socialist Republic of Scotland, with it's own President and Priminister (al la France) - within a European Community...But that's only my vision!

But at least it IS one...The problem with Scottish politics at the moment (much like English politics) is the way in which politicians are so very ficcle in the way they adhere to policies...

The SNP is no less jelly legged about this - the Monarchy Question being a prime example of how they are not willing to put thier neck on the line lest the public cut it off!

No politician these days seems to know the meaning of idealism and commitment...Dogma is a dirty word, and every party seems to be happy blowing about in the wind catching the latest (tabloid inspiried) 'issue'.

...A mark of just how bad it is getting is that - while in a pub the other night with firends - we were discussing this very issue (of crap politicians who have no soul)...And it was noted that 'at least with Thatcher you knew where you stood'!!!!

Now that is a little drastic - and I for one wouldn't want Thatcher back - but there is a point there. When you look at people like Thatcher and Tony Benn, you may not agree with them - but you certainly new they were commited to 'a' political view...

Who is there like that now?

And that is the problem...Governments are supposed to 'lead' NOT be led!

They are suppose to convince us that thier path is the right path - but as they change their 'path' every couple of days now, who knows what thier intent is?

No-one these days actually understands what a 'party' means to them - it was OK for my generation, you knew what you gotif you voted Labour, and what you got with Conservative, and SNP...But now, policy making has become nothing more than one big Pokemon card trading game....

Policies are swapped round at an ever increasing speed to suit the current climate....And they will all change again tomorrow too! (Depending on what the tabloids think will sell papers next)...

Politicians no longer 'make' policies at all - they are made in a copy room next to what page the boobs and bingo will be on! (...Oh and the Beckhams)...

So, the question of Monarchy is perhaps best left to whether Charles looks good in a thong next to Gerry Halliwell during a promo for the next 'Lotto' game...

Everyone KNOWS the idea of a King or Queen is stupid...But what the hey, they don't do any harm, are good for the tourists and sell papers!

...So why we are at it, let's bring back hanging as a public event, birch thieves, castrate sex offenders, make Posh and Becks the next 'People's Monarchy' and make all girls between 18 and 26 walk round bear brested...

I largely agree with you on the lack of integrity in politics.

Now let's look at two big issues in Scottish politics; Independence versus Union and Monarchy versus Republic. On the Scottish political scene there are four "major" political parties and two "minor" ones represented in the Scottish parliament. All but one of the "majors" is Unionist, and all the "majors" are to some extent or another Monarchist. I think the only overtly Republican party in the parliament is the SSP. So now you have to ask yourself which is the more important question; Independence or Republic. For me there is no contest.

With the Scottish parliament being more proportional in its elections than the Westminster parliament, it is possible that an SNP/SSP/Green alliance could form on the Independence question, but the major player without whom Independence will never happen in the foreseeable future is the SNP. If the SNP is to go for a majority on the Independence question, it must carry as many voters with it as possible. And that means avoiding alienating potential voters by adopting divisive policies. I don't know of any valid argument for having an hereditary element in any government, but I recognise that some, particularly older, people are stuck in a Monarchist mindset and nothing will change them. If I can persuade a Monarchist of the merits of Independence (which can be pretty hard in itself) without stepping on his/her toes about the form of government, I'll go for it. Indepedence first... the rest can follow.

Just for the record, this is my personal vision for the government of Scotland; Scotland will be an independent self-governing member of the European Union. The head of state will be a President elected by all registered voters, but having limited, largely ceremonial, powers. The parliament will have two chambers; a People's Chamber elected by Proportional Representation, each member representing a constituency of approximately 50000 people, and a Senate also elected by PR, but where each member represents a geographic region. This is not unlike the model used in the USA. The Senate would be an excellent means of giving a voice to less populated areas and would help counterbalance the built-in Central Belt bias of the People's Chamber.

Scotland would have a written constitution with a Bill of Rights guaranteeing certain rights and freedoms and specifically proscribing certain actions by the government and its representitives (e.g. the police and the armed forces). There would also be a Freedom of Information Act, an independent Judiciary, and a Supreme Constitutional Court whose members would be appointed by the president and vetted by the parliament. Once appointed a Judge could not be replaced by politicians except in cases of misconduct or incapacity, but there would be a mandatory retirement age.

------------------
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

[McBeaty]

Cheers for this Neil...This is interesting (could be a new thread really!)...

First off I agree about the two chambers...But as we are 'theorising' I think it's time that Netizans like ourselves look to the possibility of a 'Peoples Chamber' using the new technologies like Digital Interactive TV, the Internet and WAP.

Why can't we all take part in our own government now? Technology is (or will soon be) at a point where we could reasonably expect a 'Virtual Peoples Senate', where we act as the second house - much more acurate and democratic than a bunch of self-serving, crooked politicians serving out thier time until retirement.

My vision would be: An upper house of directly elected representatives; supported by a lower house made up from....Er, 'us'!

......

however, in practical terms politicians would never take on board any policy that might eventually vote them out of a job! So realistically, I foresee this...

Three houses, the first two directly elected, as per the U.S. system. But then a THIRD using the technology I outline above.

The 'Virtual House' would serve two purposes. first of all it might be said to act as a peoples' 'barometer' - indicating public opinion on any given subject, but secondly - and more importantly - it may be a means of determining those awkard impasses in the main houses.

Improbable?

I don't think so...(though perhaps my envisaged mechanism needs some work!)...I am currently myself working on a small educational project called 'The Third House' in oredr to explore and discuss such 'Virtual Politics/Government' for Scotland. I can see someone producing something more formal within the next year or so.

...Someone has to be the first country to do this...Why not Scotland?

(As to your remarks re: Independence and Republicanism, I 'would' agree with you - but I see Scottish politics as being in a bit of a malaice at the moment, with the SNP being somewhat 'becalmed' in a sea of it's own making.

Some of us wondered what would happen to the SNP if we got devolution rather than independence...And now we see that our fears were corrent. The SNP have fallen fowl of the 'devolution trap' set by the Blairite Unionists. Now there is no real singularly focus issue (i.e. 'Self Determination'), SNP now simply 'floats' along with no wind for it's sails.

The majority of Scots are happy with the status quo - we have a measure of freedom, but with the safty net of the Union to fall back on if it all goes pear shaped...

Devolution may be said to be Independence greatest enemy, as it has completely elimanated any sense of urgency in the SNP's campaign...Many Scots seem happy to languish in this 'no mans land' between Union and Independence, thinking that "well we have all the major trappings of nationhood, will legal seperation really make that much difference?"

We need to redefine our national aspirations, and more especially we need to be clear on what Independence has to offer that Devolved power doesn't - many Scots don't seem to feel there IS very much difference, and therefore have no insentive to go those last nine yards.

Moreover...We need to do this SOON. The longer this situation is left to pervade our way of thinking (politically) the harder it will be to convince people that we should go the whole way to seek independence...And in the meantime SNP support will frizzle away turning Scotland back into a two party state.

Er, of course I may be looking a little on the dark side here!)...

This is getting more like politics than history!

I see some problems with your scenarios; For your cyberchamber to work, you have to ensure Universal CyberSuffrage, i.e. unrestricted Web Access for all, and you have to ensure that people are who they say they are and entitled to vote. The second part could be handled by some sort of smart card technology, but you still have the problem of only people with the means to afford computers (or WAP phones or digital TVs) having a franchise.

Your other point about the SNP drifting does not seem to be borne out by opinion polls showing a continuing rise in SNP support for both Holyrood and Westminster elections. The SNP strategy is to make the devolved parliament work and give people a taste for more. It may be flawed and it has its detractors. I think this may be behind Alex Salmond's recent resignation. He has taken the party as far as he can and may be seen to be "tainted" by the devolution settlement. A fresh leader could give renewed vigour to the party. It's one of the reasons I personally support Alex Neil for the leadership (I wish Rosanna Cunningham had put herself forward as a candidate) because I see him as more radical and less "establishment" than Swinney. (Also Swinney strikes me as a smarmy git!) I think Neil will be more likely to push the party forward and remind people of its raison d'etre.

------------------
The man o' independent mind,
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

[McBeaty]

Originally posted by Neil Caple:
This is getting more like politics than history!

...Actually Neil, you're right - I think I will re-start this whole 'Netgovernment' issue in the Politics forum...

I take your point about the SNP - Perhaps I should rather blame myself in that I and finding Scottish politics a little 'stale' at the moment - and so am blaming the politicians.

The new leadership should revitalise interest - but it is policies that should be scrutinised.

As I said (er, somewhere!) I personally found the SNP's fence-sitting over the monarchy issue too much for me, and cancelled my membership...I flirted with some of the more left wing republican movements in Scotland - but am now without any strong political allegance...

So, I await to see a regalvanised SNP (hopefully) with a more focused policy on a republic....(but I won't hold my breath).