I have often remarked that I was born a Scottish nationalist. I can’t remember a time when I didn’t find the Union offensive. I joined the SNP at age 12 – then the earliest allowed – but had been helping local activists with leafletting, envelop stuffing and the like for at least two years prior. There was nothing in my upbringing that might explain my politics. No political activism. My father was a working-class Tory at a time when that was not a contradiction in terms. This was the 1950s, so my mother had no political opinions of her own. Whatever ideological leanings she might have had were abandoned on marriage. In those days, if you wanted to know a married woman’s views on anything you were advised to ask her husband. That’s just the way it was. If my mother had political views of her own, she kept them to herself. Especially if they differed from my father’s. Life could get distinctly unpleasant for women who exhibited symptoms of thinking for themselves.
There being no other evident source for my nationalist tendencies, I’m obliged to assume they are innate. Rationally, this seems unlikely. The idea that someone might be genetically predisposed to a particular worldview is controversial. An individual’s politics is one of those things that would seem to be more nurture than nature. I simply am not aware of any early-life experience which might have been the trigger. But of course, I don’t need to be aware.
In the same sense that I was born a Scottish nationalist, I was born a republican. Again, I cannot recall a time when I didn’t find the whole monarchy thing unfitting. It may be that I simply never had any enthusiasm for it and, looking back, I take this to be opposition. I do remember, however, getting into a bit of bother at primary school when, on the occasion of some royal personage sweeping past our village en route to a hard-day’s work at the coal-face of hand-shaking and ribbon-cutting, I flatly refused to wave a Union flag. I have occasionally wondered if said royal personage noticed amid the crowd of cheering, flag-waving children, a wee fair-haired laddie standing with arms folded and as much of a ferocious scowl as could be configured on his cherubic face.
While I was always an active nationalist, I suppose you could say I was a passive republican. What mattered was restoring Scotland’s independence. Getting rid of the monarchy was a secondary consideration a long way behind this primary objective. I think I assumed the two things would go together. It seemed to me that republicanism and nationalism were two aspects of the same thing. It was not until later that I found there were people who called themselves nationalists but who nonetheless embraced – or at least tolerated – the monarchy. It seemed an odd thing. But tolerance of and even enthusiasm for the monarchy never struck me as an impediment to the independence campaign. I probably didn’t give it much thought.
Later, as my politics became a bit more sophisticated, I came to the view that there was little point in putting energy into a republican campaign as it seemed unlikely that the monarchy in Scotland would survive the restoration of Scotland’s independence. A written constitution declaring the sovereignty of the people would be anathema to the institution of the monarchy. We wouldn’t have to chuck the royals out of Scotland. Independence would make it a ‘hostile environment’ and they’d leave of their own accord.
My views on the monarchy have hardened of late. My attitude to the old queen was that if you had to have a monarch, she was as good as you were likely to get. Her successor does not enjoy even that minimal saving grace. The succession has been long, dull lesson in all that is wrong about the monarchy. It hasn’t exactly made me a republican – I was born that way – but it has brought me around to thinking that the monarchy must be actively opposed as part of the fight to restore Scotland’s independence.
The monarchy has always been one of the devices by which Britishness was imposed on us. Together with Westminster – but aloof from its murky machinations – the monarchy served to reinforce the notion of ‘Great Britain’ as a real country. Which is counterintuitive, because nothing better exemplifies the reality of ‘Britain’ as a guise for the structures of power, privilege and patronage which benefit the few at whatever cost to the many. The pomp and panoply and the extravagant costumes and the trappings of bejewelled gold are all designed to overwhelm the senses and leave us awed and intimidated and at the same time proud and grateful that we got to be part of all this splendour even if only as spectators. As a tool of British propaganda, the monarchy is unsurpassed.
That propaganda tool is currently being deployed ad nauseam by the British state and its agents in Scotland as part of the effort to preserve the Union. Not merely to preserve it but to impress it upon us so forcefully as to make it indelible. While Elizabeth sat on the throne it was possible to regard the monarchy as separate from the the British state, at least to a meaningful extent. It benefited the other parts of those structures of power, privelege and patronage that this pretence of separateness was perpetuated. That way, they could maintain that the source of their power was something overarching and ineffible and not something contrived solely to provide them with this rationalisation of power that would otherwise be unwarranted. It may even be that Elizabeth genuinely believed that the monarchy should be separate. She was certainly proficient at giving this impression in public. Perhaps there’s a point at which pretending to be separate becomes indistinguishible from genuine separateness. If so, the old queen came remarkably close to finding that point. She had subtlety. She had finesse. She had a skip-load of experience on top of un upbringing entirely devoted to preparing to wear the crown. Which she did while that training was still fresh in her mind.
The new monarch isn’t even trying. Or if he is, he’s making a pish-poor job of it. However much one might have objected to the monarchy before, it was never possible to make a plausible case for it being oppressive. Oppression was left to government. The monarchy was above all that so that it could appear benign. Now we are starting to see the monarchy more overtly used by the British state as a shield for the Union. It is but a short step from there to it becoming a cudgel with which to beat those who threaten the Union. Elizabeth was crowned at age 25. Charles was 73 at the time of his coronation. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Elizabeth brought values to the monarchy which her son has long since lost, in whole or part. My sense is that he is much less inclined to stay out of politics. He doesn’t strike me as someone who might be content to dodge along as a symbolic head of state.
By the same token, hard-line British nationalist politicians such as Alister “Union” Jack are becoming daily less circumspect about weaponising the monarchy for use against those uppity Jocks and others showing a stubborn reluctance to wear the British identity that they are being pushed into.
When Elizabeth wore the crown, the idea of her continuing to be head of state after independence – at least until we chose otherwise – was not something from which one would immediately recoil. I find it quite impossible to imagine independent Scotland with Charles as head of state. For Scotland to be the nation to which I aspire, an end to the Union must also mean an end to the monarchy.
Peter A Bell 
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too have always supported Independence and the end of the monarchy, with the latter naturally following on as and when the first objective was attained.
But with the on-going con-trick of Chuck III being, not just King of Scots (he’s not) but also King of Scotland (he, like everybody else, can never be) anything other than a republic is the only acceptable position to take if we are to uphold our own Scottish views of community and the common weal.
Or, if it must be a monarch, let it be an elected one, who can be dismissed on the say so of the people (via appropriate democratic means). Which, in effect, would make any monarch a de facto President of a Republic.
Apart from the moral and value judgment aspects I suspect it is now a ‘winner’ among the common folk of this country: If opinion surveys are to be believed around 60% of people in Scotland are in favour of an elected head of state rather than a hereditary monarch.
Scotland, and her people, have been subjected to plunder, pillage and piracy of our southern oppressors – yes, oppressors – for centuries. We now have all the so called pomp and ceremony whilst we incur a food and energy crisis in a land of plenty.
We are ill-served by a House Jack (as UK ‘Scottish’ Secretary), a few House Jocks (leaders of ‘Scottish’ Tories, Labour and Liberals) and a House Joke (SNP First Minister of Scotland).
We need to harness the anger by all means necessary in order to get even.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aversion to change
I don’t think opinion polls are a very accurate representation of what people really think, so they need to be treated with caution. People might say they want to abolish the monarchy, just as they might say they want independence, but when they are in the privacy of the voting booth a mysterious change can occur.
A lot of people like pomp and tradition. It’s what they’re used to. Suggesting to people that independence should automatically mean abandoning the monarchy could be counter-productive when the essential goal is independence. I would prefer to concentrate on that and not link it with anythig else which could have an adverse effect on otherwise persuadable people.
Some people have difficulty taking one step in a different direction, never mind two. Please don’t think I am one of them. I’m just speaking from experience.
LikeLike
I agree that opinion polls should always be treated with caution on any subject.
And I think I stated that Independence is the no 1 goal, not tied to any one ‘policy’.
But perhaps the facts have changed.
Charles III of England is not held in particular sympathy or esteem by the people of Scotland. The indicators to date – although this can change – are that people in Scotland at large have little affinity with him as he comes across as a high-handed, arrogant, hypocritical and entitled person. Not attributes that naturally find favour among Scottish folk.
The new incumbent has not been in post long enough for there to be any change for people to avert from.
So, when the monarchy is being used – as it has been most definitely since the death of Queen Elizabeth – as an overt propaganda tool then, if it is appropriate, we should be prepared to change tack and use that against those that would wish to perpetuate our oppression.
LikeLike
Good point. Time will tell if we should use him to boost independence. Problem is, we don’t have much time.
LikeLike
Righty, someone posted this link for me elsewhere I’d forgotten about and maybe paid little attention way back anyway:
https://electricscotland.com/independence/uncommittee.htm
from where there’s this:
“A Petition to the Queen on the issue remains unanswered to this day. This, however, was an essential step, because in order to make a convincing case at international level we had to demonstrate that all possibility of obtaining redress at domestic level had been tried and failed. Some international organisations make this a condition of accepting a submission, and the unanswered petition was all the evidence that we needed.”
The bit I put in bold is as relevant today, considering Hanvey’s sought opinion, as it was then. And it’s also a reason why no Indy supporter should support a British Republic. We might need King Chuck even in his silence, to achieve Indy, specially before, dare I say, a UDI.
I googled further “The Scotland UN Committee” but not in quotes. Two links as replies. No idea if the likes of Salvo has this, there’s only 24 hours in a day. Anyways I’d like to see such a committee reformed and crowds-funded as it’s likely to be neccessary as with an obdurate UK State it might have to be NOT the Scottish Government getting us there.
Sorry this is a bit incoherent, strike hot while iron the.
LikeLike
forgot to bold “we had to demonstrate that all possibility of obtaining redress at domestic level had been tried and failed”
which by the way is also true for that UKSC case so many complain about as a waste of time.
neer mind, first link:
Click to access intro.pdf
LikeLike
2nd ink:
Click to access sovereignty.pdf
and it’s bed
zzzzzz
LikeLike
In case you were not aware, and indeed for any others who may be interested,
the electricscotland.com domain also hosts a news feed called
“Scottish and Scots Diaspora News”
https://www.electricscotland.com/scotnews.htm
to which one may subscribe via the rss feed here:
http://www.electricscotland.com/rss/scotnews.xml
😉
LikeLike
Yes, there’s globalscot.com for business, no idea how much that helps. And following McGill from Riccarton not that far from me, gets to the Clan Wallace Society. It’d be interesting to know who else was on that committee, I did find an index page for The Scotland UN Committee:
https://www.electricscotland.com/independence/scotlandun.htm
so may browse around there if I’ve spare time.
I read a comment criticising the SNP about the Ref. And then there’s this comment: “Also the aggression showed by Yes voters against No voters was also a significant factor in my view.“. Well, it was more some campaigners against No voters, and that has increased if anything. Mind you, some Indy campaigners these days save the worst of aggression against fellow indy campaigners. I guess they’re the wrong type! Or we are.
It’s also interesting to see how many or perhaps, how few, have spent so many hours, days, months, years of time on the cause of Scotland. Perhaps Scotland will indeed be made free by the efforts of as few as 100. Or even just the 1. Stand up, whoever you are! Your time is Now.
LikeLike
I’m amused, (in a certain kind of way, that is) about all this “aggression” YES folks are said to have had, and how the 2014 debates were polarizing the country, etc, etc, etc!
The fact is, there was precious little aggression from either side, but an awful lot of made up stuff by certain pro Union politicians, and any actual aggression, was in fact coming from that lot of politicians, more than anyone else.
Tho we did see actual real violence from the Orangemen the day after the 2014 vote in Glasgow.
Outrageous behavior downplayed by the pro London politicians, and their pals in the Media.
As for the Monarchy, I am not entirely against Scotland having a Monarch, but if we did have one, it couldn’t be the same person as the King/Queen of England.
Any Monarch in this country, would have be in this country.
A Scottish Monarch, would have to be exactly that! Someone who lived here all the time, and be more like the Dutch or Scandinavian Monarchies, rather than continue the London style of doing things.
And the new King of England is not a Scottish Monarch in any way at all.
He declined to take the Scottish Coronation Oath, and wasn’t crowned at Edinburgh, anyway.
However, the Oath bit, was the more important part.
Thus, he is King of England only, and Scotland, the Kingdom of, has no Monarch at present.
As they say in Rome, the See is Vacant!
So what we currently have, is the English King pretending to inherit also, the Scottish Crown.
However, as Peter points out, it is the political symbolism of it that sways so many.
I noticed the other day, The Times of London headline, where it talks of the English King’s Scottish “coronation”, even tho, it wasn’t.
But still, the Times of London, went for its big tabloidesque “Scottish Coronation” splash.
Again, all part of the English state propaganda machine, and I considered this fake ceremony at Edinburgh, a bit insulting towards Scotland.
Somewhere along the lines of Scotland having being defeated by England, and this was the official symbol it. This was us giving our subservience to the victorious Monarch, and acknowledge we were now to be governed by Him.
If they wanted a wee Thanksgiving service, that’s fine, I wouldn’t mind that, but I certainly did mind Charles, King of England, getting to touch the Scottish Crown. And with the First Minister sitting there smiling his face off, going along with that insulting part of it.
Again as Peter says, it’s the kind of thing that could well make a Republican out of anyone!
LikeLike
If nothing else, the recent circus in Edinburgh does draw attention to the existence of 2 separate crowns and may create an opening in the minds of Scots and others without detailed historical knowledge, that Scotland is a kingdom in its own right, that the credentials of such a kingdom are still a reality, and that cr3 pretends to hold sway over us. With such clumsy ceremony, he gives the game away.
The season for roadblocks on the A93 and drone flying into the path of helicopters approaches. Nmk, gtf.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great being in contact again Peter. On this subject I remember asking my dad why Scotland wasn’t an Independent country when I was about 11 or 12. “ Scotland got into bed with England 300 years ago and got trapped. ( I think it was trapped he said)
Anyhoo, later on – when I was 18 I had been working various jobs and saving for my first car( a Mk 2 Austin Healy Sprite) took me a long time to save up the dosh but I eventually did it- only to find out that Charlie boy got an Aston Martin given to him as a present! That was enough to do it for me and the Monarchy.
Personally I think we should start diverging from the UK. Use Scots in more and more conversations and throw in the odd bit of Gaelic if you have it 😀.
LikeLiked by 1 person