It’s impossible to get away from the Queen.
This week, she's headlining Royal Ascot, following closely on Trooping The Colour, the Birthday Honours, and that Jubilee bash.
(And never forget the ever present soap opera, “Will and Kate”. It’s just one regal exaltation after another.)
But as far as Scotland is concerned, why would any self-respecting Scot want to have anything to do with the English royal family? And that includes Alex Salmond and his SNP Government.
An independent Scotland with the Queen of England as head of state? It doesn’t add up, Alex. Would the representative of a future English monarch be able to sack a Scottish Government the way the Australian Governor-General dismissed the Whitlam administration in 1975?
Let’s be clear about it. It is the English royal family we're discussing. I’ve never heard anyone in England or abroad refer to the present monarch as anything other than the Queen of England. I’ve never heard her called the Queen of Britain.
Although we call it the Union of the Crowns in 1603, in reality James VI abandoned Scotland for the riches and power of the English throne.
The royal rat only ever returned once, for a brief visit, to his native country. He became James I of England.
The present Queen of England is known as Elizabeth II. If the same formula had been applied to her as to James, if there really was a union of two equal crowns, she would of course have the title Elizabeth I.
The numerals give the game away. It’s only English history and the English crown that count.
James’s Stuart descendants were interested in Scotland only as a source of cannon fodder for their various dynastic struggles.
That big waster, Charlie, had the chance in 1745 to declare himself satisfied with reclaiming the ancient throne of Scotland. Instead, he led his brave Highlanders on a suicide mission down south. The English throne was the only prize he valued.
And what did the Hanoverians ever do for Scotland – apart from Victoria discovering it as a holiday destination?
So why on earth do the Scots want an English monarch to rule over them?
Perhaps even more importantly, the Royal family symbolises all that’s wrong with our shamefully unequal, class-ridden, snobbish United Kingdom.
The present Queen is wise enough to keep her opinions to herself most of the time. When the rest of the family open their mouths, they reveal themselves to be right-wing reactionaries.
Let’s face it. If the Royals had the vote, their choice would undoubtedly be restricted to pondering between UKIP and the wilder fringes of the Conservative Party.
In the USA, the descendant of a slave became head of state. In Poland, Lech Walesa, a shipyard worker, was elected president.
(Now there’s a thought – wouldn’t the late Jimmy Reid have made the perfect head of state of an independent Scottish republic?)
Here we’re stuck with someone who has done nothing of note except be lucky enough to be born into a very privileged family, the descendants of German robber barons.
Really, a grown-up society should not have any use for a monarchy.
As for Scotland, our last monarch abandoned us over 400 years ago. We’ve been without one ever since. It‘s about time we formalised the situation.
We moderate all comments on HeraldScotland on either a pre-moderated or post-moderated basis. If you're a relatively new user then your comments will be reviewed before publication and if we know you well and trust you then your comments will be subject to moderation only if other users or the moderators believe you've broken the rules
Moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours. Please be patient if your posts are not approved instantly.