Does it matter if he’s Not My King?
I doubt it has escaped anyone’s notice that the King visited Edinburgh yesterday. It wasn’t to be crowned King of Scots. That would have required him to take the Scottish oath, which no monarch has in the UK since Queen Anne (who, not coincidentally, was the last monarch crowned prior to the Act of Union). Instead, there was a ceremony at which he was presented with the Honours of Scotland. This has acted as a focal point for some of the louder Unionists on social media, many choosing to gloat about Scotland’s subjugation. ‘How is it possible to watch this ceremony and not believe Scotland belongs in the UK?’ one observed.
Well, if you already held that unshakeable belief, it’s not a great surprise that you would reach that conclusion. But for many in Scotland, the royal family represent the exact kind of Britishness we are most desperate to escape. We cannot abide the inherited privilege, the fawning obsequiousness, the unsubtle reinforcement of a rigid class system that the rest of the world has long since outgrown. Enough of these people were in attendance yesterday that chants of ‘Not My King’ were clearly audible even on the BBC footage. Judging by the expression on Charles’s face, the message was not lost on him. He is well aware that he does not enjoy the universal approval of the Scottish people (I refuse to use the archaic word ‘subjects’, even if that is how he thinks of us).
Indy Twitter was up in arms. Anti-royal messages and polls still dominate my feed. I identify strongly with this sentiment. I am a republican. I think the idea of a hereditary monarchy is a hopeless anachronism in the 21st century. Although there are other countries who have also held on to theirs, I believe most have adapted to the modern world. Only the UK persists with the idea that the royal family are elevated above the common herd, demigods who live amongst us - despite the news regularly showing us that they are all too human. I’d get rid of them all in a heartbeat. But - and it’s an important but - that’s not the point I came here to make.
What I want to say is this: the royal family, annoying and frustrating though they doubtless are, are not the problem here. They are not the ones standing in the way of Scotland regaining its independence - even if David Cameron did delight in telling us that the Queen wasn’t neutral on the issue, she never attempted to intervene. The problem is Westminster - that Scotland is shackled to this toxic Union, and told, daily, that there is no democratic way out. Yes, the over-the-top pageantry on show yesterday sticks in my craw too, but the existence of the royal family doesn’t actually change our situation at all.
What’s more, this isn’t the time to rail against the monarchy. It could easily prove counter-productive. If we want our independence, we need to be convincing the ‘soft No’ voters. Those who might have been unsure in 2014, but went for the No option because they feared a leap into the unknown, were taken in by the many scare stories, or held the mistaken belief that the status quo was the ‘safe’ option. Many have since made the journey to Yes. However, others have not, and some of those will either support the royals, or feel that to leave them behind along with the Union would be abandoning too many things at once. If we want to win, we will have to convince people who don’t agree with us that an independent Scotland is somewhere they would like to live too.
The monarchy is a distraction. It’s another reason to divide a movement that desperately needs more unity. And getting rid of it immediately isn’t essential. Canada, Australia and New Zealand haven’t got round to it yet, and none of them are any less independent. I would very much hope that an independent Scotland would choose to become a republic, but the time to decide that is after independence itself has been secured. It is not now.