With reference to “whether a monarchy really fits the bill” (Letters, 17 December) the point of my letter (16 December) was to say that is not necessarily correct to equate democracy with the republican form of government.
Past republics have encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. Some modern democracies happen to be constitutional monarchies, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Japan. Then there is Russia, a new democracy, but one which some may view as a dictatorship.
In the main, modern European democracy involves the election of government officials by the people represented.
The head of state has, more often than not, a fairly symbolic role, whether monarch or president. Considering the behaviour of some recent presidents, some might regard the constitutional monarch as the lesser evil.
In the case of Scotland, the monarch would be head of state, acting within the limits of the new written constitution. That constitution might be expected to provide the mechanism for the removal of the monarch,“if the people of Scotland should so wish”.
Other qualifying details, such as assent etc, would, doubtless, be informed equally by the new constitution, after the necessary consultation and drafting.