Readers' Letters: Would Charles want to be Indy head of state?

Deputy First Minister John Swinney’s assurance to us Independence “Fearties” that King Charles III would be Indy Scotland’s head of state shows they think it’s the easiest “must have” to deliver in a list including the Pound, no border and economic prosperity.

Two of the SNP’s exemplar small countries, New Zealand and Ireland – English-speaking former colonies to boot – would disagree. Ireland is a republic and New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinta Ahearn said on the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday show that her country will likely become a republic in her lifetime.

If Scotland voted overwhelmingly for Scexit, I'd probably stay, but feel I was living in a country now foreign to the UK. So why have a foreign country’s king?

And anyway, why would King Charles want to be head of state with less constitutional power than before, in a country that rejected his and will, in all probability, be run by a political class that spent its whole life railing against his country's system of government and perceived repression, and would no doubt continue to blame them for their failures and all our ills?

Deputy First Minister John Swinney says an Independent Scotland under the SNP would keep the monarchy (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

What's even worse to consider, however, is what alternative would a cronyist, unimaginative Scottish republic (judging by their last 15 years in power) define and appoint? A glorified Lord Provost of Scotland? A constitutional Makar?

Or how about setting up a new monarchy like post-Franco Spain? We could invite the living heir to Bonnie Prince Charlie, Warsaw art historian Peter Pininski, to be king.

Or how about one of Robert the Bruce's many descendants? According to the FindMyPast website they include the Governor of Edinburgh Castle, Major General Alastair Bruce of Crionaich (probably the most sensible choice), actress Tilda Swinson and, believe it or not, Meghan Markle. This opens the way for her son Archie to take the throne, with a nod to the Scots language movement, as King Erchie the Furst.

There are no easy answers!

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Namely Charles

The letter by Jane Ann Liston about distinctive Scottish nomenclature could have gone further (17 September). At the opening of the Scottish Parliament, Buckingham Palace agreed that I could welcome Her Majesty as “Queen of Scots” (We have never heard of “Queen of the English” and in Scotland the monarch was of the people, not the land) and the title has stuck ever since. Mentioning this to the King (who had been present on that occasion) in the gathering at the parliament on Monday he told the group he was meeting that indeed that had helped avoid the awkwardness of ERII or ERI and added with a smile, “That is not a problem for me as I am Charles III.”

David Steel, Selkirk

Church lesson?

Watching yesterday morning's service in Westminster Abbey I was impressed by how every chord struck beautifully and every note resounded truly. No-one attending or watching could fail to be impressed by a service that reverberated with faith and the presence of God, Himself. Of course, the service was constructed by a woman of deep faith and hope and her husband of like ilk. Is there a lesson here for empty churches?

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian

Deft touch

HM Queen Elizabeth caught many by surprise by joining James Bond to jump out of a helicopter. She went on to excel by having afternoon tea with Paddington Bear.But she then outdid even those moments by bringing Scotland to the world’s notice by having her coffin driven from Balmoral to a ceremonial Lying in State in Edinburgh showing just how much her Scottish subjects would commemorate her reign.The Queen was always able to be intuitive of public feelings with such a deft touch, she knew just how to present herself. She will be sadly missed.

C Lowson, Fareham, Hants

Safety first

I would like to thank the BBC and STV for their excellent, sensitive coverage of events in Scotland following the late Queen’s death.

I was saddened but not surprised, however, by the snide comments of Scottish independence supporters in The Scotsman. Predictably they have crawled out of the woodwork at this sad time to express their hatred of the monarchy and all things British and politicise the Queen’s death.

Incredibly, D Mitchell suggests that Scottish peoples’ mourning of the late monarch and a couple of police arrests of anti-mourning protesters for their own protection shows “we have more in common with Putin’s Russia” (Letters, 16 September). Would he have preferred an organised SNP march to St Giles to challenge and disrupt the crowd’s mourning?

On the contrary, if Scotland ever becomes independent, I personally dread the possibility that we could have a Putin-like SNP republican leader ruling our country!

Sally Gordon-Walker, Edinburgh

Park name

When King George VI died King’s Park beside Holyrood was renamed Queen’s Park on the succession of the late Queen. I wonder if it will now be renamed King’s Park again.

Donald Lewis, Gifford, East Lothian

Silence is golden

As a septuagenarian who participated this weekend in the Scottish Half Marathon I was overwhelmed by the response by fellow competitors to the call for a minute’s silence to respect the Queen’s service to Great Britain. A complete silence descended, two minutes before the start, followed by a round of applause in appreciation of a lifetime of service to her beloved country.I am sure the moment encouraged many to achieve their personal bests (not the contributor however!).

Graham Smith, Edinburgh

Wrong place

It was disappointing to see on TV on Sunday numbers of Celtic fans at St Mirren display their feelings for the Royal Family in the way they did. They are entitled to their constitutional opinions and a republican view is a perfectly valid one. I am not sure about it being expressed the way it was in Paisley.

Surely those who wished to stand quietly or take part in the minute’s applause should have been allowed their time to reflect without disruption. Is that not also a human right? Could the demonstrating fans not have simply turned their backs? That would have been a very much more powerful way of expressing themselves. As it was, several Celtic players looked decidedly uncomfortable and the team put on their worst show of the season. And the fans’ display in Europe on the same matter in midweek may cause trouble for their club with UEFA.

Let me say also that at Easter Road on Saturday there were both Aberdeen and Hibs fans booing throughout the minute’s applause; also apparently with a section of Dundee United fans at Ibrox, so this is not simply a Celtic-Rangers thing.

It is time, surely, to find another way to express sympathy in matters like these. Perhaps football stadiums are not the places for displays of anything remotely religious, political or constitutional.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Ban banners

Does anyone know why Celtic football club is allowed to get away with its supporters displaying hateful banners and chanting at football matches? The latest manifestation has been the hoisting of a banner, during a minute’s applause for our late Queen, which read: “If you hate the royal family clap your hands”.

I doubt this is illegal and I appreciate that we must accept freedom of speech, however offensive.

But the question that remains is: why does the Scottish Football Association allow this manifestation of hatred to continue without penalising the club? Is it not ashamed of such behaviour?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

No shame

I take umbrage at commentators who say Celtic supporters brought shame on Scottish football again in Sunday's game in Paisley. They most certainly did not bring shame on me and the thousands of football fans all over Scotland who respectfully observed the minute’s silence and rounds of applause in appreciation of our late Queen. They brought shame upon themselves, as they so often do, and their board, whose members do nothing to condemn their antics.

Ian Balloch, Grangemouth, Falkirk

Priorities

The letter by Stewart Sweeney (“Charles can be Climate King”, 19 September) raises the question of what is the priority policy of the Scottish Green Party? Supporting the SNP indicates that the party gives precedence to Indyref2 over COP26 as the economy cannot support both goals. In spite of the warning from the wildfires raging over Europe and water levels running low from the Tiber to the Tay, Green politicians at Holyrood give precedence to Indyref2. This despite the fact that a decade of austerity, as detailed in the SNP Growth Report, will extend the current cost-of-living crisis until 2035. Why do the Greens not accept that independence is irrelevant if we do not fix the climate and support Scottish Labour in achieving a Green Revolution?

It will be impossible for any flat owner to repay a £40,000 debt to fit a heat pump during a decade of austerity or Scotland to clear the £150 billion cost of meeting the COP26 targets set by the First Minister. Time for Green politicians to listen to the thousands of voices of students who, in a pre-Covid era, walked out of classes and lecture halls to support the goals of Greta to save the planet!

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries & Galloway

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. Do not send letters submitted elsewhere. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions