Scots are in no hurry to let go ofthe royal line

Published on Friday 3 July 2009 22:20

ON A strange and sweltering July day in Edinburgh, an 83-year-old monarch with a heavy cold drives a few yards up the street from her palace at Holyrood to deliver a tenth birthday greeting to the Scottish Parliament.

Almost 50 of Scotland's 129 MSPs are not present to hear her brief speech; their absence causes some adverse comment, and talk of discourtesy to a Queen who, ever since 1999, has gone out of her way to uphold the dignity of the parliament as part of Britain's new constitutional settlement.

Given that this is a deliberately low-key celebration, though, perhaps the subdued turn-out is not too surprising; and it certainly does not signal a surge in anti-royalist sentiment among MSPs. For what is most surprising about the relationship between Scotland and the monarchy, as it has evolved over the last decade, is the strange death of republican Scotland; and of that vigorous strand of anti-monarchism that once seemed likely to become dominant in Scottish politics, under home rule. There are still a few staunch republicans around in Scottish public life, of course, notably "Red" Roseanna Cunningham, currently environment minister in the Scottish Government. But these days, they tend to focus their energy on more urgent issues; and to keep their republican sentiments largely to themselves.

The first and most obvious reason for this change of mood has been the decision of the current SNP leadership to accept that even following independence, the Queen and her successors – used to reigning over many independent nations, including Canada and Australia – could easily continue to act as heads of state in Scotland, as a symbol of the continuing "social union" with the rest of the UK. There is a vague promise of a referendum on the monarchy, following full independence. But to judge by the affectionate smile that wreathes the First Minister's face whenever he sets eyes on the monarch, getting rid of the monarchy will be the last thing on his mind, should independence ever come; indeed he seems to have come to see good relations with the Crown as an asset, in making sure that Scots see independence as a goal that can be achieved within a framework of general stability and goodwill.

But if this shifting attitude in the SNP has helped to take republicanism off the mainstream political agenda, it's clear that this political mood-change would have been much less likely if the House of Windsor itself had not played a blinder of a game, in keeping abreast of the politics of devolution. Back in 1952-53, when the present Queen first ascended the throne, she made a couple of famous mistakes in relation to Scotland, still resented in nationalist circles; not least her decision to call herself Queen Elizabeth II, although only England had ever had a Queen Elizabeth before.

This time around, though, the Palace seems to have resolved to get things right, grasping from the outset, unlike most other British institutions, that unless the monarchy showed full respect for the parliament as a new element in the constitution – and for its possible future decisions on independence – then it would risk making itself the enemy of progress in Scotland, and greatly increase its chance of rejection. When Alex Salmond was elected First Minister in 2007, the Queen therefore made a point of travelling to Edinburgh for the swearing-in ceremony; vote for independence if you like, she seemed to be saying, but don't assume that that means the end of me, as your Queen of Scots.

And so far, the Windsor strategy seems to be working well; not least because events in the wider world are also now playing in its favour. For if the recent financial meltdown has made one thing ever more clear, it's that when it comes to unaccountable power in the modern state, the monarch is the least of our problems.

Constrained by tight constitutional rules, subject from birth to intense media scrutiny, forced decades ago to open their books to public inspection, and driven – at least under the present Queen – by an obvious ethos of dedicated public service, the royals begin to look like model public figures and wealth-holders compared with the cash-grubbing wide-boys of the financial sector, whose largely unpunished billion-dollar antics are now casting millions of blameless workers into the misery of long-term unemployment.

Which is another reason why, as the game of constitutional politics plays itself out over the next decade, the Scots are far more likely to stick with the House of Windsor, than to vote it into the dustbin of history. Scotland is, of course, more Nordic and pragmatic in its attitude to monarchy than the rest of the UK.

It sees the monarch as a useful and dignified figure contained within the limits of a democratic constitution, not as some magical bearer of the essence of the nation, hedged about with a Shakespearean glow of divinity; and if the mood on Wednesday was relatively muted, and confined to a dry nod of national acknowledgement, it's precisely because the occasion bears no magical significance.

But if some Westminster commentators still seem unable to grasp that distinction, the House of Windsor itself has been quick to understand he subtly different nature of the game north of the Border, since the parliament emerged to give it full expression. For good or ill, the Scottish Parliament is now in with the constitutional bricks.

And whatever the political outcome, it looks as though the House of Windsor will also be there for the foreseeable future, just across the road at Holyrood; to hold the ring through whatever changes may come, and to continue to play their leading role in the theatre of national life, with all the skill of a team of infinitely experienced performers, under the eye of a wise, and increasingly subtle, director.