Lanarkshire Tales
THE KING IS DEAD Chatelherault and Hillhoose Councillor claims right to the throne. Bruce Twigg, a ninety-year-old Councillor and the nation"s longest serving RAF cadet, stunned his superiors last week when he claimed to be the King of Scotland, England, Ireland and Northern Afghanistan. Obedient The cadet corporal, who until then had been an obedient and diligent amateur airforceman, had just been ordered to march up and down the gym hall in the local church for the umpteenth time when he suddenly turned to his commanding officer and said: !Naw. Dae it yersel." Before the officer could reprimand him, Mr Twigg threw his hat to the ground and blurted out: !D"you know who am ur?" Which roughly translates from Gaelic-Scots-Urdu as: !You have no authority over me, you proletarian upstart." Swift A keen genealogist and party activist, the Councillor had often claimed a mixed descendancy from King James IV and Elvis Presley VI. The contumacious cadet then apparently scaled the bell tower to declare his sovereignty to a local villager and his bike who had gathered to watch. It is reported that Cllr Twigg remained on the roof for almost four hours until the affair was brought to a swift conclusion when a police marksman persuaded him to return to the ground with two well-aimed bullets to the head.
888
the drouth
Bloke As news of his timely death spread throughout the town a neighbour told us: !He was always such a nice bloke. But I do remember him going on about his pedigree and referring to the queen as a despot. He also had a nasty habit of annoying council workers by making them bow when they met him. But on the other hand he did award my husband a knighthood for buying him a pint." The police marksman commented: !He won"t be missed. If you"ll pardon the pun." Bike Lord Lyon of Iceland, who deals with hereditary matters on behalf of Buckingham Palace, informed an impromptu press conference that Mr Twigg may indeed have been the rightful heir to the throne but as he was now dead the crown would pass on to a Mrs Betty Windsor of London. The man with the bike was unavailable for comment.
TWIGG: Memorial
the drouth
888
Republic! By Michael Coyne. FROM CHAMBERS DICTIONARY: !republic, n. a form of government without a monarch, in which the supreme power is vested in the people and their elected representatives; a state or country so governed. – adj. republican, of or favouring a republic; – n. a person who advocates a republican form of government". I AM A REPUBLICAN. For years, whenever I have found myself broaching this topic with anyone for the first time, I"ve identified myself as !a dictionarydefinition republican". I shouldn"t have to do this – should never have had to do it. Yet the dominant culture of the British media, particularly on television, has subtly, snidely and systematically given republicanism a bad name. This effect has been achieved by consistent use of the word !republican" in connection with the troubled and tragically violent history of Northern Ireland. IRA spokesmen, IRA demonstrations and acts of violence for which the IRA claimed responsibility have been routinely referred to by newscasters as !republican spokesmen … republican demonstrations … republican violence". Regrettably, the state of modern political culture in the UK is such that there must be plenty of !patriots" who would willingly knock seven bells out of self-proclaimed republicans – not because of what they are, but rather because of what such !patriots" might misconstrue republicanism to mean. Thus my use of the phrase !dictionary-definition republican"; but I"m probably wasting my breath. Anyone sufficiently inflamed to use fists because he hates my political philosophy is unlikely to consult the dictionary first, just to make sure it"s a fair cop. So this article is the last time I"ll bother with the qualifier. In plain truth, despite pro-Establishment insinuations to the contrary, a republican is not a terrorist, not an anarchist, not a crank or misfit who wants to see ordered society overthrown and reduced to chaos. A republican is an individual – above all, in this country, an individual – who believes that monarchy is an unjust, undeserving, undemocratic, outmoded and frequently demeaning system of government and society. A republican is an individual who believes popular sovereignty – government of the people, by the people, for the people – is the hallmark of a just, meritocratic, democratic, dignified and truly honourable society. Republicans believe they possess the intelligence and the political maturity to select their own leaders – and that those leaders should themselves be elected, responsible, accountable and, if necessary, removable. I am a republican.
888
the drouth
The British political system itself has successfully marginalised republicanism. With every elected MP required to swear the oath of allegiance to the Queen, republicans have their cardinal principle neutered from the outset. Granted, in recent years, there have been anecdotes of MPs who take the oath with fingers crossed behind their backs – a tiny, futile gesture as they are sucked into a hide-bound, antiquated system. These are incidental republicans, by which I mean they"re not elected on a specifically republican platform. I don"t mean to be impossibly purist about this. It"s quite likely many of them would not even get elected if they stood on such a platform. But it would certainly be refreshing to see one who had the courage to try it. In 1991 I saw a billboard urging people to ensure they were on the voters" roll for the 1992 general election (and a fat lot of good that did!). The ad declared: !If you don"t register, neither will your views."). I remember thinking at the time: !And even if I do register, my views still won"t." I"ve voted in seven general elections in this country, but I"ve never been faced with a candidate who openly represented the core value of my political beliefs. Republicanism has been marginalised and almost rendered irrelevant at the electoral as well as the operational level of parliamentary politics in the complacently-christened United Kingdom. The constituency in which I live has just had a byelection. As expected, the Labour candidate won – against nine others in the field: Scottish Nationalist, Lib Dem, Tory, Green, Scottish Socialist, UKIP, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, an Independent, and the wonderfully named !Alliance for Change – Britain in Sin". Yet there was one choice we didn"t have. Was that because, in many parts of Scotland, the media"s competent tarnishing of the word !republican" has been particularly effective? Or because republicanism is anathema? (It surely is, for many Conservatives). Or because (many Socialists would argue) republicanism actually is an irrelevance – a distraction from broader social and political issues that require urgent redress? The Scottish Nationalists, to their credit, have been willing to debate the question of republicanism. In 1993, the SNP conference rejected by a vote of 216135 the motion to become a republican party (which begs the question: just what kind of !independent Scotland" did the majority of those delegates envisage?). More recently, in September 2005 their party conference voted to keep Nationalist representation out of the House of Lords: a sure sign of healthy disenchantment with government by the unelected. The Green Party is now officially
the drouth
888
republican, and one wouldn"t imagine the Scottish Socialists or the Socialist Party of Great Britain are hell-bent on preserving the trappings of the merry lives of Windsors. So there are parties which, given the choice and the opportunity, would happily put the concept of monarchy out to pasture. But there"s noone standing explicitly, specifically, as a republican. In this free, open, democratic society of ours, there virtually never is. In early twenty-first century Britain, republicanism is still the creed that dare not speak its name. That is a tragedy – but it"s one that an ever-growing number of people in this country are no longer prepared to countenance with complacency. In these last months, one organisation has brought the issue of whether there should even be a monarchy to the forefront of civil discourse. That organisation is Republic, and it stands for just what it says on the tin. Abolition of the monarchy is an issue most national politicians seem content to sidestep. Few dare call it to reason, but it is an idea whose time is long overdue. Republic was formed in 1983, at a time when criticism of the monarchy was all but taboo. During the 1980s, draconian Thatcherism ensured the scarcity of bread, and the royals were wheeled out to provide the circuses. A classic case in point: the announcement of the Charles-Diana engagement in February 1981 obliterated news coverage of the unemployment
statistics released the same day (the concept of !a good day to bury bad news" wasn"t invented by a New Labourite on 9/11). For years Republic maintained a relatively low profile. Ironically, it was the run-up to the heir"s second marriage that catapulted the organisation into the spotlight. Republic"s ads appeared in national newspapers (with the exception of the Daily Mail, which refused to run them), urging people to join and to help, as the ads themselves put it, !End The Royal Farce". Republic is dedicated to its objective solely by democratic and non-violent means. It does not rely on political parties, interest groups or corporate donors; it"s financed only by membership subscriptions and donations from individual citizens; and it has no political agenda beyond abolition of the monarchy and its replacement by a head of state based on !democracy, accountability, transparency and merit". Republic has no preferred candidate for head of state. Its sole preference, its sole issue, is that we, the people, should have the right to decide who that person will be. Republic"s website lists a series of hypotheses either unlikely or impossible under the present system, ranging from the joky (!Imagine ‌ a head of state who qualified in a subject before lecturing the rest of us about it.") to the Constitutionally serious (!Imagine ‌ a head of state who isn"t at the pinnacle of a system of privilege ... our head of state being accountable to the people.").
BUSCUITS: A REPUBLICAN"S GUIDE
888
the drouth
the drouth
888
The rhetoric of the Republic website and its associated literature is vigorous, but not aggressive. It calls for and encourages spirited and intelligent debate on a vital issue at the heart of British social, cultural, political and economic life; one which has been allowed to remain dormant for many decades too long. One of the ads lists reasons why the monarchy should be consigned to history, among them: !It is discriminatory … It demands deference … It is the enemy of merit and aspiration … It devalues intellect and achievement." I want to address just one of these indictments, and I want to do so in a peculiarly Scottish context. One of the most obnoxious headlines I ever saw was in the Sunday Post on 17th October 2004: !The Royals are no eggheads." It was a typically deferential assessment of how the Windsors" long history of lacklustre academic achievement hadn"t stopped them from making their mark in life. Such enterprising selfstarters! The impetus for that sorely-needed defence of hyperentrenched privilege was the controversy over who had contributed what to Prince Harry"s A-level Art project. It did not debar his entry to Sandhurst; and with all the talk of regiments being phased out, it was comforting to know a !B" in A-level Art and a !D" in Alevel Geography were enough to guarantee entry to Britain"s officer class. If the Army were ever ordered to capture paintings of fairly unimpressive landscapes, we all know who"s best qualified to lead the charge. What was most offensive about that headline !The Royals are no eggheads" was the way it crudely disparaged those who have attained some measure of academic achievement. This inverse snobbery wasn"t just anti-intellectual by definition but anti-social by implication. It was reminiscent of the old school bully"s !let"s-beat-up-the-swot" mentality, which insinuates, oh so snidely, that intelligence and diligent application warrant mockery at best – and, at worst, a damn good kicking round the back of the maths huts. History is replete with regimes in which intellectuals were the first ones up against the wall. There"s nothing egg-headed about academic achievement in early twenty-first century Britain. Most of it is the product of sheer hard graft. The majority of people in Britain are not born to huge, untold, unearned wealth. Yet this country has, for much of its history, been run by governing elites (not just the monarchy) whose solution to our social ills has frequently been: !more carrot for me, more stick for you". This ultra-Establishment mentality is quick to rage against a 50p rise in unemployment benefit, but would clap a man in irons for criticising increments to the Civil List; the same mentality sneeringly belittles intellectual endeavour but rushes eagerly to the defence of the hyperprivileged. The carrot-and-stick society has extolled meritocracy in theory yet enshrined mediocrity in actuality, so what we have is
888
the drouth
!mediocracy" – government by the mediocre. To digress only slightly, I would argue that the same carrot-and-stick society has readily prioritised the postImperial vanity of warfare over the social necessity of welfare. And it is this same top-down mentality, all the while urging us to work hard, pay our taxes and be good little drones, that now tells us the years of toil will be longer and the payment bleak. Enough is enough. Britain, and certainly Scotland, has had it with wars and other Imperial frippery. Britain is the fifth-richest country on the planet, yet there are areas in the UK, especially in Scotland, which are so poor they would shame the Third World. Atop this society is the monarchy, with a head of state whose cumulative wealth (i.e. counting both personal wealth plus wealth officially enjoyed as head of state) has been estimated by the Daily Mail (by no means republican) at around £20 billion. It is disgraceful that one family should live in such vast, unearned opulence, while so many of the people they purport to represent eke out an existence in atrocious, hopeless poverty. This is not just gross inequity. It is gross iniquity – and we, as a nation, should be ashamed of this. What the monarchy does represent, quite accurately, is the fact that our democracy is essentially a veneer, beneath which antiquated concepts of class and genealogy, unwarranted and unjustifiable privilege, unelected, unaccountable influence and medieval mumbo-jumbo all still reign supreme. Even now there are still people who believe the monarch to be God"s representative on earth, and that she rules by divine right. It ranks with believing in the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny (actually, it makes less sense – at least, with the tooth fairy, we get the money). Republicans won"t triumph by seeking to convert fervent royalists. Statistically, the split in the country is likely akin to that in America at the time of the Revolution: one-third for a new nation and a new freedom, one-third for sticking with the Crown, and one-third in the middle. It"s not the conviction republicans who"ll eventually win the day but the !floating voters" who, for long enough, have perceived other political priorities, or who"ve been blithely unconcerned, or even downright apathetic. When enough people with no previous strongly-held opinion on the subject start to believe the royal family have had their feet under our table long enough, that will make the difference. Prior to this, however, those already in favour of a republic might further that cause by coalescing into a formidable, focused movement. Now comes the paradox, and – surprise, surprise – it"s one with a uniquely Scottish dimension. I am writing this one week after the !Rally for a Republic", held outside the entrance to the Scottish Parliament on 1st October 2005. A recent poll estimated Scots support for a republic at around 49%. There are UK nationals and members of the Commonwealth all over the world who believe it"s time for the sun to set on the monarchy; and, in all
the drouth
888
likelihood, nowhere is there a higher concentration of that sentiment than in Scotland. Yet at present, Republic has not one single group north of the border. Well, it"s not because we"re deferential. So why hasn"t Republic taken off here? Could it be that the Scots like the idea of a republic but, when push comes to shove, we"re just too apathetic to do anything about it? Or are there deeper restraints? I would suggest there are two. The first is Scottish Nationalism. Scottish enthusiasm for a republic has been diverted into Scottish Nationalism, and watered down by a party not wholeheartedly committed to republicanism. Republic, as an organisation, is neither for nor against Scottish independence, but maintains that if Scotland remains part of a united Britain, it should do so with a democratically-elected head of state. It"s possible that a party preoccupied with selfdetermination for Scotland may not perceive any immediate benefit in an alliance with a British campaign at present run largely from the South of England; however ‌ The majority of the Nationalist rank-and-file are republicans. In the recent Livingston and Cathcart byelections, yet again, victory eluded the SNP. This is possibly because most voters aren"t interested in the Nationalists" message; or – as I"ve suggested before – it might be because they"re not altogether clear about what that message is. It would make perfect sense for the SNP to endorse republicanism wholeheartedly. It
would most likely further the cause of Scottish independence. It would certainly increase the pressure for a fairer, more egalitarian political system in Britain. Either would be preferable to the present state of affairs. The second factor impeding the progress of a republic in Scotland is the Labour party. Labour is the Establishment party in Scotland. They are doing very nicely out of the status quo, so Scottish Labour won"t be at the forefront of the campaign for a republic. To them, the proposition is as unattractive as proportional representation. A measure of power might shift from the politicians to the people, and then where would we (and they) be? Of course, they"d respond with the adage: !If it ain"t broke, don"t fix it." I would counter that with another classic American aphorism: !If you"re not part of the solution, you"re part of the problem." The Labour party has long been a major constituent in that complacency which keeps the monarchy entrenched as both pinnacle and epicentre of the British political state. This, by its very essence, constricts democratic participation. Moral cowardice and lickspittle leadership have consistently prevented a political party founded to advance social justice from addressing the most unjustifiable inequity on the horizon. Talk about the means of production all you want; but until we have a fairer means of election, starting with head of state, complete with greater accessibility and accountability, we"re going nowhere.
WAFERS THAT NEVER WERE...
888
the drouth
the drouth
888
Socialists just want to have a few more crumbs from the pie; but I"d suggest republicans should be concentrating on the entire pie. Professor Stephen Haseler, Honorary Chair of Republic, says: !Britain needs to become a republic in which politicians are accountable for their actions; not first ministers of the Crown, but ministers who are responsible to Parliament. Scotland is a natural country to be a republic because of its egalitarian tradition, and because the royal family are a Southern, rural and English imposition on the whole country. What we want is to translate these instincts among the Scots into institutional reform – so that the monarchy has its wings clipped, so that the royal prerogative needs to go, and the succession needs to go." I would extend this argument further, and suggest that Scotland should not simply be involved, but should actively spearhead the campaign to become a republic. Britain is an indirect democracy. At national level the electorate is given one measly vote every four or five years, but the British people at large have no direct say regarding the choice of Prime Minister. Ultimately, the Queen asks the party leader with the most seats in the Commons to head up her government. The British Constitution is unwritten – an arrangement, one suspects, designed to suit the governors rather than the governed. Citizens do not have a Bill of Rights in the UK, because they are not citizens; they are subjects. One half of Britain"s parliamentary democracy is completely protected from any popular electoral process – and partially populated by bishops of the Church of England, of which the monarch is supreme head. In the multi-cultural, multifaith society of twenty-first century Britain, there has not been the slightest move toward the separation of church and state. These are not the trappings of a confident, forwardlooking society in which liberty and democracy are paramount. These are half-hearted excuses for democracy; and the list runs on. Britain has only recently begun to address the need for a freedom of information act – and, so far, governmental enthusiasm has been lukewarm, to say the least. Other blessings of liberty which have consistently eluded this sceptred isle are: genuine separation of powers, set elections (which help make governments accountable to the people), and finite terms of office for political leaders (desperately needed here in the 1980s, and equally desirable now). What has all this to do with monarchy vs. republicanism? Everything. All these limitations on our democratic participation are rooted in the philosophy: !Trust your masters; they know what"s best for you." And the epitome of that patronising, pernicious philosophy is monarchy – based on the notion that we, as a people, are not politically mature enough to choose our own leaders and thus determine our own destiny. In a democracy, government should be the tool of the people. In Britain, Establishment theory and practice
888
the drouth
has for centuries essentially decreed the people are the tool of the government. !You"ll do what we tell you – and you just be grateful for what you"ve got." Know your place, don"t rock the boat, have another cup of tea, look for the silver lining, pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag and smile, smile, smile. That mindset has prevailed for the same reason that political accountability in Britain has long been in a state of disrepair. Here, the people are not sovereign in their own country. It"s Her Majesty"s Government, not ours. It is that mindset, that lack of popular sovereignty, and that dearth of political accountability which allowed !leaders" to mislead Scots concerning the oil-based economic viability of independence; to foist the hated poll tax on a people who never voted for it; to hoodwink us into war in Iraq; and which now earnestly seeks to convince us that ID cards, with their concentration of information about us, are for our own good. Now, royalists will surely respond that none of these developments are the fault of the monarch. In this, they have an eminently reasonable point. The real point, however, is that such deceitful, manipulative, quasi-dictatorial, anti-democratic or anti-libertarian practices are symptomatic of a system that is implicitly contemptuous of any concept of popular sovereignty. If mechanisms exist to operate without the people"s knowledge and/or against their best interests, there"s always the likelihood those mechanisms will be used. Such abuses as those cited above will not be attributable to the present monarch; but they are most certainly the responsibility of a sorry succession of politicians who have not been held accountable at the end of the day, because, to subvert (with apologies) a phrase currently in vogue, their oath has not been to the people. There is no 100% guarantee against abuse of the people"s best interests, but the republican position is that the best possible insurance is in a legal and governmental system in which the people"s authority and interests are supreme. Popular sovereignty is only achievable in a republic. Put bluntly, whose country is it, anyway? Ours, or the monarch"s? Try striking oil in your backyard; you"ll soon find out. If that happens in Texas or Oklahoma, you are made for life. If it happens here – guess what? – minerals revert to the Crown. There are those defenders of monarchy who offer specious political ripostes to counter the logic of republican arguments. It is wildly anomalous that many Conservatives, given their ideological insistence on people paying their way through life, should be so ferociously protective of the royals" unearned privileges. Another ludicrous response is that champions of abolition are surely communists. I"ve just suggested that if you strike oil in your backyard, you should get to keep the proceeds; that doesn"t seem very communistic to me. Another specious claim is that monarchy serves as a bulwark against the spectre of dictatorship. This is the rationale of the timid, devoid of faith in our capability to select our own
the drouth
888
leaders. The absence of popular sovereignty and our consequently indirect democracy have in recent decades shown Britain is vulnerable to the prospect of elective dictatorship, given the fatal confluence of big egos, big agendas and big majorities. Thus we get the worst of both worlds – an unelected monarch and, more than once, a strong-willed premier utterly convinced of personal righteousness, unwilling to heed plebs who fail to see the big picture. Yes, it"s true that a strong-willed leader could be directly elected by popular mandate; that"s the risk we run in a democracy. Yet he would not be able to hide behind the !royal prerogative", which currently invests the British government with potentially sweeping but carelessly-defined powers. Most important of all, a leader directly elected by the people can be directly removed by the people. A more direct form of election might not have resulted in the man who took Britain to war in Iraq returned to 10 Downing Street for a third term.
The present monarch, of course, is known to dread a republic. But then, as George Bernard Shaw observed: !Any political system which finances itself by taking from Peter to pay Paul can usually count on the support of Paul." We will never be a truly first-class country until we have a first-class political system. We can never have a first-class political system if we settle for one that stops short of popular sovereignty. That means we need a republic. Without a republic, we will remain Lilliputians subsidising Ruritanians. Be it in a united Britain or in an independent Scotland, if we ever do vote for a republic it will be a vote for our own dignity, our future, our self-confidence, and our selfrespect. Above all, it will be a vote for ourselves. To find out more about Republic: The Campaign for an Elected Head of State, see: www.republic.org.uk
There is one final pernicious argument peddled by the opponents of republicanism. It is to point to the United States and to suggest that if we, too, had a republic, we might end up with presidents of the same calibre (or lack thereof) as the worst ever to occupy the White House. This notion does us a disservice, and the United States a fierce injustice. It is a smug form of calumny implying that we, as intelligent, politically mature individuals, would be incapable of electing from among us men and women of honour and integrity, without the restraint of our !social betters". Thirty years ago, my teenage republicanism was frequently met with the spectre of Richard Nixon and Watergate – despite the fact that the outcome of the scandal actually vindicated the American system, proving even the President is not above the law. The other sorry example used to support this argument is still current. There is much evidence to suggest the democratic process was derailed in Florida in 2000; but that is an argument for greater vigilance, not for dispensing with a republic. Neither Richard Nixon nor George W. Bush are any argument for favouring monarchy rather than a republic. The same electoral system produced George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. All these men came from among the people: e pluribus unum. Some were born poor, but all attained distinction on merit. Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, in his superb book Bring Home the Revolution (1998), contrasts the vibrancy, optimism and mobility of America with the drab stratification which infects much of British life. He argues that Britain actually had a political revolution in the eighteenth century. The problem was it happened in America. The fledgling United States benefited from the radical philosophy of men such as Thomas Paine, while Britain remained mired in the age of monarchy. Freedland makes the case that it is time for Britain to become a freer, more fluid society – with establishment of a republic a crucial early step.
888
the drouth
the drouth
888