This has the link to my column for The National today in it:
'If the royal family wants a role in Scotland it is time they realised that they are subject to its laws' // Richard Murphyhttps://t.co/0QBWAdbfH8
— The National (@ScotNational) July 29, 2021
As I concluded:
The structures of government that Scotland should enjoy should, whatever political differences there might be, enjoy the consent of the people of Scotland. They should also be consented to by all those tasked with fulfilling the role of governing. The Queen and her estates should not be exempt from that requirement. If she cannot apparently consent to the will of the Scottish Parliament on an issue as big as this, why should Scotland consent to her role in its constitution?
The Queen's refusal to embrace her climate change obligations is bad enough, but the manner in which she has done so indicates that there is a much bigger constitutional issue to address. If the royal family wants a role in Scotland it is time they realised that they are subject to its laws. There is no place in any country for those who think otherwise.
The rest is worth a read, I think.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
No one takes her seriously so why do you?
Because this was serious
Sorry Pam but that is just not correct. It’s very naïve.
And don’t you find this thing that no one apparently takes seriously to be little too…well…expensive to keep?
Cmon, PSR. You know the money isn’t a factor; it is the resources it might tie up, such as people who could be doing more socially useful work.
Keep trying to read it but is locked up unless subscribing! Not going to happen. Interesting adverts I’m seeing – the trashy dating and hair restoring etc.
Still keep clicking on it – upto 5th most read
Sorry – I don’t control that and can’t republish as they do pay me….
You would think with a son like Charles, the Queen would have more sense than to flout her obligation to ensure that climate heating does not destroy or hinder the well-being of her people. The SNP should not have cowed to feudal prerogatives.
Interesting read – I am a subsciber. Yet again we face the inability of the SNP being unable or unwilling (or both) to move the multitude of independence issues forward. I have been trying to get local interest in a citizen’s assembly – no great response so far.
I think it also extends to the UK as a whole
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
“Royal Consent” certainly applies in England and Wales as well as Scotland, so I suspect that it applies in all jurisdictions in the UK. N Ireland has its own legal system so it would be interesting to know whether Royal Consent applies there too and if not, why not?
In Scotland, the SNP’s view on the future of the monarchy appears to be to leave it off the agenda until independence is achieved for fear of estranging older-generation ‘Yes’ voters who are viewed as being mainly supportive of the monarchy. Once independent, the public “might” be consulted on the monarchy “at a later date”; all a bit nebulous, in my view. I’m very doubtful about such tactics since polls show the younger generations are significantly more in favour of independence and less in favour of a hereditary monarchy than their elders, so there’s a real danger that more votes may be lost than gained.
In any event Scotland will need a publicly agreed, written Constitution prior to a referendum so that voters can understand how the future independent state will be governed. It seems clear to me that the role, or otherwise, of the monarchy must be defined in it. Personally, I see no point in escaping from a status of quasi-colony in the UK, only to go forward with feudal elements retained, which no doubt will also involve the granting of exemptions, privileges and financial subsidies.
I find triangulation very annoying….
Forgive me, but everyone is chasing the wrong hare. There is nothing new about any of this: nothing. This goes to the nature of the British Constitution itself, and the application to Scotland of Queens Consent merely follows from the legislation underpinning the Scottish Parliament, and of Scotland’s place in the Union. You just saw a bit of the backstage mechanics you are not supposed to see, at the wrong moment.
Underneath all the red herrings being thrown around, there is one critical principle at work (that makes all lawyers and jurists uncomfortable, in part because its relationship to the common law is both esoteric and alarmingly elusive): the Prerogative.
I wish you good luck parsing it (this remark should have been accompanied by a loud, rasping cackle of demonic glee – so just imagine it).
🙂
Challenges have to be faced by those who want to create new countries
Scotland has their own legal system.
I agree with securing independence first, many older folk still support the monarchy, so we need them to vote yes, then we can have a vote on how to deal with the royals.
The royals are literally beyond the law in England, not sure about Scotland though.
Spot-on.
Historically, ‘The Firm’ has been reasonably astute and I wonder if this revelation might result in them requesting that The Monarch no longer vets legislation?
Have I got this tight? Does the Queen receive a significant income from leasing the seabed to offshore windfarms? So that some of the money we think we are paying for green energy, goes in fact to the Queen?