Michael Kelly: SNP cannot count on Queen as head of state

SALMOND says the monarch is a ‘friend of Scotland’, but she may opt not to rule over an independent country, writes Michael Kelly

AS THE Queen continues to celebrate her 60 years on the throne by addressing both houses of parliament, it is appropriate to recognise the virtues of constitutional monarchy. At a time when the threat of separation has brought a degree of uncertainty to Scotland, stability should be recognised as one of the main benefits of having a head of state above the day-to-day political infighting that naturally accompanies government.

The rededication which we heard from the Queen yesterday reinforces that stability. It will mean, among other things, that Charles’s reign, if he ever makes it to the throne, is likely to be mercifully short. One of the great strengths of the Queen’s reign is that we do not know her opinion on any extraneous matters. With her heir we know too much. William will be in touch and modern. He is being helped by his choice of a photogenic bride who will prove even more of a support once she overcomes the handicap of the public-speaking training which is inhibiting her natural charm.

The Queen is determined to carry on in the belief (not shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury) that her elevation is a vocation which simply cannot be abandoned for the sake of a quieter life.

But it is in the distinction between a titular head of state and the government of the day that is the true advantage of monarchy. The Watergate affair and the Bill Clinton scandal would have been much less traumatic for Americans if the founding fathers had had the good sense to separate the functions of head of state and head of government.

However, as it was anathema for those early Americans to contemplate the idea of a head of state based on birthright, so it should be even less acceptable these days – when fairness and equality have moved even further up the political agenda – for a new state to want to base its constitution on heredity. It should have no part in the creation of any modern democracy.

Yet that is what Alex Salmond is proposing for his bright new Scotland. There could not be a better example of the triumph of pragmatism over principle. The Queen is popular in Scotland, and suggesting her replacement with an elected president would increase even more the resistance to independence.

The First Minister never misses the opportunity to emphasise the fact that he believes that it is the Scottish people who are sovereign. This view directly conflicts with accepting as head of state someone who cannot be removed by the people. His attempt arbitrarily to abandon SNP policy to hold a post-independence referendum on this fundamental part of the new constitution is a clear indication of how he intends to run our country: by decree and soundbite. It seems that while the leader of the SNP claims that the policy is now to retain the Queen, the party can produce no evidence that policy has in fact been changed by the party’s own democratic process.

His latest obiter dictum that “the Queen is a firm friend of Scotland” may well be his hope, but I doubt whether a monarch with such a deep sense of duty as that of the Queen regards herself with her subjects in any part of her realm in those familiar terms. As she made clear again on Tuesday, from the beginning of her reign in 1952 she saw as her duty leading and conserving the United Kingdom. Her reiteration of that commitment was the tacit rejection of independence and was simply a more subtle way of repeating her Silver Jubilee statement that spoke of “the benefits the Union has conferred”.

There have always been those in the SNP who are avowedly republican, and as they mistakenly see their dream of separating Scotland from her neighbours coming to fruition they are emboldened to break their party’s admirable code of public discipline and state their opposition to monarchy. What both they and Mr Salmond seem to have forgotten – conveniently or simply because of their habit of not thinking policies through – is the views of the Queen in this. Just as there is the assumption that a separate Scotland will be automatically admitted to Europe while sticking with sterling, there is an assumption that the Queen will “continue” to be head of state.

There is no continuity about it. In fact, there is a clear discontinuity. A new state is being created. The Queen will not now give her view on whether she would want to rule over Scotland. And maybe her view doesn’t matter. She is advised on political matters by her prime minister. Would any British government suffering the humiliation of a failed attempt to keep the country together fall over itself to provide this upstart country with a readymade head of state? There is no guarantee of that. So another imponderable can be added to the independence referendum.

One anomaly that could be rectified in relation to Scotland is to declare the Queen as Elizabeth II and I. From the moment she was crowned, Scots were annoyed by the fact that there was no acknowledgement that Scotland had never before had a monarch of that name. As a result of the violent opposition to her title, to this day pillar boxes here bear the rubric ER without the regnal number that is incorporated in the rest of the UK. Even at this late stage it would be satisfying to see this mistake corrected.

It would certainly be a more fitting Diamond Jubilee present than to confer upon a small market town in rural Scotland the unjustified title of “city”. But perhaps we have to see the referendum off before the Queen or the British government could consider what would now be seen as a highly political gesture.

The SNP’s over-optimistic view on how easy it would be to establish a head of state should be yet another sound reason for voting “No”.