The Monarchy's Role After Independence

FreedomNow · The Monarchy's Role After Independence

If it's true that the queen will still be the head of state after independence, do you think that Scotland would instead decide to become a Republic? IMO if we leave the UK then why should we still be associated with the monarchy of Britain? I know that the queen still has a role in the Isle of Man even though it isn't part of the UK but I don't feel that it would be right to have what would become a foreign queen to have a role in our state. Discuss...

Aventinian · Re: The Monarchy's Role After Independence

FreedomNow

Well although England would probably be our closest ally after independence, but it would be a foreign country to Scotland as it is to any other nation such as Holland or Belgium so why should we be associated with another country's monarchy?

Aventinian

FreedomNow

Twenty-six counties of Ireland are free from the monarchy and the British government. Meanwhile six of the Ulster counties are occupied by the British to this day making the Irish people there second class citizens behind those who support the occupiers. For years the British supporting government in NI resented those who classed themselves as Catholic or Irish because they wanted a "Protestant state for Protestant people" but they forgot one thing. Their Protestant/British "utopia" they tried to create does not represent the whole ancient province of Ulster so therefore IMO when they reffer to the six counties as Ulster they are inncorrect. They left out three countires so that they could have a Protestant majority for the near future although the residents of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal would be thankfull for not being included in the new bigot controlled country. IMO the British caused the civil war in Ireland and triggered republican resitance because of unjust sectarian governing. Yes, British influence in Ireland has done wonders for the country and it's people. Rant over.

But back to the subject of monarchy in an independent Scotland, we shouldn't be associated with the monarchy of the UK if we are separate from it.

Scott2006

The present monarch can trace her ancestry to the leaders of the ancient kingdoms in what was Strathclyde and other areas of Scotland long before christianity came to our shores.

A sizeable minority detests the monarchy, yet another large minority are diehard monarchists. Of the remainder of the population many never consider the position of the monarch or can't see any advantage in electing a partial party political politician with years of sweaty backroom deals behind them as a potential statesman.

I think an independent Scotland would have to establish a reputation for a successful parliamentary democracy before changing the Head of State.

The first ten or twenty years of an independent Scotland could enjoy certain advantages in keeping a monarch as a figurehead.

SLG

For a lot of people, I think the problem with the monarchy is that they represent a starnd of Unionism that is at odds with independence. Whether that is through there own choosing or not. Certain figures within the royal family seem to be willing to embrace the 'new Scotland'. I would think that much of the resentment could pass post-independence.

Aventinian

Dave Coull

FreedomNow wrote " For years the British supporting government in NI resented those who classed themselves as Catholic or Irish because they wanted a 'Protestant state for Protestant people' " - yes, NI was extremely divided along sectarian lines, but this worked both ways. You yourself have just identified "Catholic" with "Irish".

Aventinian wrote " I seem to recall a similar situation in the Republic of Ireland, replacing the word 'Protestant' with 'Catholic' " - True. In the early Twentieth Century, what later became the twenty six county Republic had a large Protestant population. In percentage terms, the Republic has barely one tenth of the number of protestants that it had then. Dublin alone had sixty branches of the Orange Lodge. No, that's not a mistake for "sixteen", there were SIXTY orange lodges in Dublin. There's just one now. _Some_ of that decrease may be down to natural causes. But some of it is as a result of Irish government policy.

Aventinian also wrote "Just goes to show - when Nationalism is put into motion, you reap what you sow" - but FreedomNow was right to put at least some of the blame for the sectarian nature of Northern Ireland on the British government. There will be fewer opportunities for such mischief-making in the case of Scotland. We don't have any "six counties" with a fervently unionist majority, no, nor five, four, three, two, nor even one.

FreedomNow also wrote "does not represent the whole ancient province of Ulster so therefore IMO when they reffer to the six counties as Ulster they are inncorrect", to which Aventinian responds "Maybe we shouldn't be calling this part of the world 'Scotland' then - since those dastardly English still hold Berwick" - the difference is that in Ireland the Border is still very much a live political issue, while in Scotland there is no significant independence-seeking party or organisation which disputes the border with England. Berwick is south of the Border.

FreedomNow

It would be stupid of me to say that there wasn't sectarianism in the republican movement but unlike the unionist movement in Ireland it was based almost solely on religion. The founders of the United Irishmen were Protestant and two of it's most famous leaders were Protestant. The man widely thought of as the first republican martyr was a Protestant farmer. Infact the flag was designed and used by republicans to show unity between Protestant and Catholic under Ireland. You can't honestly think that republicans haven't been treated differently from unionists in NI? Out of the thousands interned in country there was only a handful of Protestants despite the exsistance of several loyalist paramilitaries with hundred of members. Also the fact that out of the thousands of policemen in NI there was an overwhelming number of Protestants compared to Catholics. Not to mention years of assisting loyalist death squads.

Centuraries ago borders changed quite a lot, infact if the border from 700 years ago was in use today Scotland would be completely different. In Northern Ireland the border was established only last centurary which IMO makes it a slightly different situation.

Dave Coull

In Northern Ireland, Catholic equals Republican, and Protestant equals Unionist. This malignant Northern Irish equation was imported into Scotland, but there are parts of Scotland where it never took root, and even in those parts of Scotland where it used to flourish it is in decline. I am a supporter of independence for Scotland. I am also an opponent of monarchy. I am also a protestant. What I most certainly am NOT is an Irish Republican. Here in Scotland, supporters of independence can be both protestant and catholic, and they can be both republican and monarchist - and the same goes for unionists. Indeed, some of the staunchest Unionists, in Scottish terms, can be found amongst Labour Party members from the Glasgow region who wave Irish Republican colours when they are supporting Celtic football club. FreedomNow wrote "You can't honestly think that republicans haven't been treated differently from unionists in NI?" - of course they have. Northern Ireland is a sectarian state/province/whatever. "The founders of the United Irishmen were Protestant and two of it's most famous leaders were Protestant. The man widely thought of as the first republican martyr was a Protestant farmer." - all true, and all, sadly, irrelevant. The United Irishmen's rebellion was protestant-led and non-sectarian in the North. Further south it was a different matter. There were cases of attacks on, massacres of, protestants, purely and simply because they were protestants. It was the reaction against those Catholic sectarian atrocities in the south which killed off protestant republicanism in the north, and led to the rise of the Orange Order. There is really only one thing that we in Scotland need to learn from the experience of the Irish independence movement - how NOT to do it.

FreedomNow

I would not go as far as saying that I am an Irish republican, however I do support the poltical struggle for a United Ireland. I'm Scottish, I was baptised a Protestant although I don't take much interest in religion and have never been to church on my own free will. I have supported Scottish nationalism from a very early age and have always been interested in the Irish struggle as my great-grandad was an Irishman who left the North and settled here. I feel conected to both countries and have somewhat been inspired of the stories of resistance from centuaries gone by. I respect anyones chosen religion hence the reason why I have no time for organisations such as the Orange Order and the like. I agree with you that although we can learn from some things the Irish have done since independence such as economy ect we can never follow it completely.

Rinty

The united irishmen and similar radical groups here in Scotland were part and parcel of a republican spirit linked to presbyterianism This same mood was carried to america and other places.

The Irish catholics were late to the republican movement, for years they were stuanch supporters of the catholic monarchy.

In fact, you could argue that if the siege of Drogheda was replayed, Adams would be outside alongside cromwell and Paisley would be in the town defending the royalists.

In think the "struggle for a united ireland" is clearly a nationalist rather than a republican demand. A republican would be less interested in the border and more interested in the peoples will.

FreedomNow

Yeah there were United Irishmen were present in America and Canada as well as Ireland. After several of them visited here there was a group called the United Scotsmen who were active for a while and attempted to start a few rebellions. The plan was for the a Dutch army to land and assist them in overthrowing the government in Scotland but was defeat before it landed in Scotland. Interesting stuff never heard anything about it in school, or much about Scotland at all for that matter.

Aventinian

Corby Boy

Thomas Muir was the leader of the United Scotsmen movement I believe, inspiration from Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen. Not so unusual with the flow of young presbyterian radicals between Belfast and Glasgow/Edinburgh.

I think there was a skirmish of some sort known as the Battle of Perth? Somewhere around there, with Gov't militia. Most of the United Scotsmen were transported to the colonies or clapped in irons.

FreedomNow

Although the IRA were no angels some of the murders of innocent people atributed to loyalist para's were among the most gruesome in modern times such as the Shankill murders or the Monaghan or Dublin bombings. Their strategy during the entire conflict was to kill as many Nationalist civilians as possible to try and turn public favour against the IRA and get the Catholics to urge them to give up. This strategy cost a lot of lives but it didn't have the desired affect and to an extent turned wordwide opinion against the loyalists. So IMO they had as much maybe more cause to be interned than republicans, infact one of the few Protestants interned was a Protestant republican. But at the time the government must have found these actions acceptable as they did with most of the loyalist's actions.

William_Cleland

VLK

If Scotland becomes independent I think it will become a republic in the similar manner as Ireland having a president whose powers are only ceremonial. Would an independent Scotland be a member of the Commonwealth? Maybe, maybe not. The future lies in the EU, however, not in the Commonwealth.

As the Irish question came up also, there was a Fine Gael politician who proposed that in exchange for a united Ireland, Ireland should rejoin the Commonwealth and recognise the British monarch as the head of state, just like countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ etc. However, such ideas were unanimously rejected and I think that politician is an ex-politician nowadays.

Holebender

Being in the Commonwealth and being a republic are not mutually exclusive. There are many republics, such as India and Nigeria, in the Commonwealth today.

VLK

LAz

I think that monarchies are totally unnecessary. They are things of the past, people supposedly having a god given right to rule. It's nonsense, nobody has such a right.

Holebender

Aventinian

Aventinian

VLK

Holebender

Did Fiji's membership lapse because it was expected to reapply on becoming a republic, or did it simply withdraw from the Commonwealth as part of the whole constitutional change it was undergoing at the time? In other words, did the Commonwealth expect a member state to reapply for membership when it became a republic or did the member state itself choose to withdraw? I suspect Fiji's lapsed membership was a result of a Fijian decision to withdraw rather than a Commonwealth rule requiring them to reapply.

Holebender

Malta became a republic 10 years after becoming a member of the Commonwealth and I see no indication that it was made to reapply for membership or that its membership lapsed.

Trinidad and Tobago became a republic 14 years after independence and its membership of the Commonwealth continued uninterrupted.

Ghana became a republic 3 years after independence and, again, its Commonwealth membership was unaffected.

I think those are enough examples.

Aventinian

Holebender

So how did Malta, T&T, and Ghana (probably among others) manage to continue their memberships of the Commonwealth uninterrupted even though they became republics after joining the Commonwealth? What's so special about Fiji?

Scott2006

If Fiji or in possibly a future Scotland became a Republic (after Scotland had had independence for some time) after a Coup d'etat then the Commonwealth would in most circumstances exclude that country by a suspension of membership if the Commonwealth central organisation was trying to bring pressure to restore democracy.

Holebender

In that case, it's not becoming a republic which triggers the Commonwealth response, it's the loss of constitutional government.

LAz

Aventinian

Holebender

If you look at the Commonwealth's website it says these countries have been members since whenever. Nowhere does it indicate that any of these countries had their memberships renewed or reapproved on the dates they became republics; there is just a continuous membership from the date of independence.

LAz

South Africa broke off and they had no monarchy. I think we should follow their example for that.

I wonder why the queen is on Canada's coins.

Holebender

Because she's their head of state.

LAz

Holebender

It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose. The more settlers there were from the UK the more likely a former colony is to still have the British Monarchy. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several smaller places are still Monarchies. South Africa had a lot of non-British settlers (they even fought a war over who should be in charge) and they obviously decided not to continue the Monarchy. Other African countries, India, etc. didn't have so many settlers and they mainly decided to have their own indigenous head of state.

The Monarchy's Role After Independence

Re: The Monarchy's Role After Independence