20/03/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: Whatever happened to the debate

about the monarchy and whether Britain - or indeed an independent

Scotland - should be a republic? As the Queen tells Lords and MPs she's

recommitting herself to the United Kingdom, has the country's view of

her family fundamentally changed over the past decade? Is the issue

of the monarchy no longer an issue? Good evening. The Scottish

Parliament is to hold a debate in honour of the Queen's Diamond

Jubilee. The First Minister made the announcement as the Queen was

accepting a stained glass window as a present from parliamentarians at

Westminster. In her Diamond Jubilee speech, there was no mention of any

possible changes to Scotland's status, in spite of the fact that

the Queen had wandered into that political minefield previously, at

the time of her Silver Jubilee in 1977. In a moment, we'll discuss

the relationship between the state and the head of state. First Julie

Peacock reports. There was plenty of the tomp and circumstance that

Britain does so well. But no mention of how this country could

look in a few years time. We're reminded here of our past. Of the

continuity of our national story and the virtues of resilience,

engeneral youty and - ingenuity and tolerance which created it. I have

been privileged to witness some of that history and with the support

of my family, rededicate myself to the service of our great country

and its people, now and in the years to come. Politicians from all

parties praised the monarch, Alex Salmond was one of them and said

his party had long since changed its view on the monarchy. Plans to

held a referendum on the royals' role in an independent Scotland

have been dropped. Policies change and that was an intelligent change

in policy. A lot of things change. As the Queen herself was noting

today, she has seen 12 Prime Ministers in her reign. She has

seen four Scottish First Ministers and three Welsh First Ministers and

two northern Irish ministers. I think that was very much a change

for the better. It places the monarchy as it should be in a place

which is above and beyond politics. I think that is all to the good.

is a different tone that the one set in 1977, when Scottish

independence was an idea gaining popularity. I number kings and

queens of England of Scotland and princesses of Wales among my

ancestors. So I can reddily understand these aspirations. But I

cannot forget that I was crowned queen of the United Kingdom, of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was still another 15 years

before her royal highness was experience her annus horrible lis.

But in the 70s there was opposition to the Queen. The sex pistols

almost made No 1 with good save the Queen. Some believed an

establishment conspiracy gave Rod Stewart the top spot instead. And

the SNP had never been more popular, with eleven MPs in Parliament. At

the time a significant number of members held republic can views,

particularly in the 79 group, a group that the young Alex Salmond

was a member of. Until it got him thrown out of party in the 80s. It

noise longer 1977 and attitudes to the monarchy have warmed. No longer

are they seen as cold and distant. They have reinvented themselves as

Britain's first family and are now as much part of British culture as

fish and chips and the Red Arrows. The SNP are unlikely to rock that

boat. The Queen is popular to add the issue of Republicanism that

would be the alternative into the debate would to put it mildly muddy

the waters. I think they have taken the right approach in this. Because

you could argue historically what they are saying is if the

independent vote gos in a certain direction, that abandoning the

union, but still retaining the union of crowns. According to some

it doesn't mean Republicanism has died out in the SNP. Alex Salmond

has worked out there is sup fort tr -- support for queen and the

monarchy in Scotland and the SNP policy, or rather Alex Salmond's

policy has changed to recognise that fact. Maybe I'm being cynical,

but I have been covering SNP kfrs conferences since 1979 and they are

58 Republicans. 2002, the last time there was a commission, headed by

the late Neil McCormack said there would be a referendum on the

monarchy. The idea was the Presiding Officer of this place

would be the temporary head of state until the referendum. In that

case it would be Tricia Marwick would be the head of state. What

happen after that, goodness knows. Regardless of thousand refer dup -

ehow the referendum goes, it is unlikety the Queen will be out o'

of a job north of border. I'm joined now from Edinburgh by the

Times editor, Magnus Linklater, and here by commentator and blogger,

Gerrry Hassan, and by Glasgow University vice-principal,

Professor Murray Pittock. Magnus Linklater is it conceivable tt

queen could have made remarks today along the lines of those in 1977.

They were more pointed she said, perhaps this Jubilee is a time to

remind ourselves of the benefits the union has conferred. Is it

conceivable she could say that now? No, that would be a highly

political remark to make in the current climate and what the Queen

has done since then, every time she has come to Scotland, particularly

when she addressed the Scottish Parliament, that she has taken care

to praise the quality of the Scots, to talk about her close contacts

with Scotland and how much she a admires the Scottish character and

that has been the message she has emphasised since then. I think it

would be hard to imagine her now saying, I am the Queen of a United

Kingdom. Because that United Kingdom is changing. It is changing

in front of our eyes. Do you think, Murray Pittock, she could say

anything like that now? I think things have moved on in all sorts

of ways since 1977. People are less fearful of change. Change has

happened to the monarchy and to the British politic, that the idea that

any change would break things apart has been overcome by events. We're

in a process of change and one thing that has been interesting is

the palace adapted to the 2007 SNP victory in the Scottish election

much better and much more quickly than many of the opposition. There

was a very good and nuance adds and careful response to the First

Minister and a warmth seems to have developed. It I not surprising that

things have moved in the way that your interview with Alex Salmond

indicated. That explains why, the SNP was never a Republican party,

we should make that clear, Alex Salmond personally claims he was

never a Republican. Although I think a lot of people in the 79

group were. But any idea of let's have a referendum on this is out of

the window. We have a multiplicity of unions. The Queen has done this

better, a changing union, that most of the pro-union politicians. She

got it right in 99 and in 2007 her language was more understanding, if

you remember Blair and Brown and then in 2011. Now elected

politicians could take a few lessons from the Queen. We can talk

about her as a person and the institution, but as a person she

understands that better than they seem to be. There has been a big

rebranding exercise going on, if we look back a decade, events after,

well following the death of Diana in 97, it was a low ebb for the

monarchy. Well I am not sure I would agree that things have

changed enormously. There has been a nuanced change. But the monarchy

was very much a celebrity, a showbiz monarchy 0 years ago. What

happened in 19 97 the death seemed to take the celebrity out of the

monarchy for many people. So attitudes focused on the rest of

monarchy as not living up to the cult of celebrity. The monarchy are

back in that field again. Essentially, it is successful and

permanent come back tour and they never need to come wack back.

People always respond to them as - to come back, because people always

respond to them as figure Herds and features in society and they have

very good, clearly better and more nuanced advice than they had 0

years ago. There has been a big reinvens. -- 30 years ago. What

happened after the death of Diana, there was not a wave of weatherism,

-- Republicanism but people said we don't like the way this set of

royals is behaving and the reaction to the death. Rather than we don't

wouldn't a monarchy. I think that is right. There was a lot of

criticism, but I think the Royal Family itself learned a lot from

that. And the Queen of course, the Queen herself has become steadily

more popular, almost the longer she is there the more people warm to

her. Now in Scotland it is queer that she -- clear she enjoifs come

to Scotland and enjoys her holidays in slapped. And she as a person has

-- in Scotland and she has a person has become more popular. After her,

will that popularity pass on to her heir? I think there there may be

some doubts. And I noticed that although Alex Salmond is now a

signed up royalist, he still takes great care to say that he is first

allegiance is to the Scottish people. That is a distinction that

I don't think many English Parliamentarians would make. There

is still that sense that he has got his fingers crossed behind his back.

The issue there is that he is's looking at the issue of popular

sovereignty and aware of the aspects of theory which mean that

the popular sovereignty is at the heart of the Scottish. It accept e

means Scotland is a different -- it means that Scotland is a different

part of the constituency. I think what Alan was saying earlier, there

is still opinion within the SNP that is probably still quite

strongly Republican. I don't think you can ignore that. Do you think

Republicanism as a radical cause is lost? No also to take the point,

popular sovereignty is a myth in Scotland. It doesn't exist in legal

intenty. I think we have a probable, we live in a country that is not a

democracy. We have one part of constitution that is elected and

still we have problems with and the queen has personified that. Not a

democracy? The House of Lords is not elected, the Queen is not

elected and we have heads of states around the world who are not

elected. But we have gone through change since 1977 and a great

widening of inquality and somehow despite the royal being connected

to that, she has stobed some element of continuity --

established some element of continuity. Once she goes, there is

an issue of how the new royals will manage that. 30 years ago they

would have represented the wealth and consumption, a pattern we saw

in the 80s as well. If you think as long as they're there, Britain is

no t democratic, what do you suggest, we elect them or just get

rid of them? It is an issue that needs to be you know put forward

that you can have different elements of authority and we could

have an elected head of state or accept for a period that you don't

directly elect everything. Nobody is suggest Scottish Enterprise is

elected. We're not electing police heads, but a debate should be

brought forward and acknowledged that Britain notice a democracy.

Isn't that what people think. You say Britain noise t democratic.

Most people would say that is none sense because we accept that the

Queen, with has no political power, you know and is not elected. It

doesn't mean Britain is not democratic. To be a full democracy,

that is a fact. What is a full democracy? All countries have

institution and not all have all their members elected. And in the

UK and in Scotland, a lot of institutions have a link to the

crown. And so there is an issue, the monarchy is an institution,

there are institutions that that depend on the monarchy. It is a

question of how you want to treat institutions in the wider society.

But frankly no democratic country has democracy in all its

institutions from top to bottom. Because that democracy requires

institutional things to ensure liberty of its people. Do you think

the culture has changed? Constitutional issues, whether

Scotland should be independent, is important to nationalists. But more

generally across Britain, some of the arguments for Republicanism,

for changing, getting rid of the House of Lords, look at the

difficulty the Liberal Democrats are having with that and with AV.

These are issues that for a minority were very important 30

years ago and don't seem to be as important now. I'm not sure they're

as important in many people's minds, because in a sense they seem to

belong to a virtual political realm. Reforming the House of Lords is

like an endless joke without a punch line. It what going on since

Lloyd George in 1911 and one reason the lords is not reformed, in the

UK, no one can decide what to do with it. To make it more democratic,

because the commons don't want it challenging their authority. And

the idea of making it a kind of federalist chamber, which has been

kicking around for 15 years is also unpopular. So... Yeah, people have

lost interest in constitutional change in large parts of the UK.

And they haven't here. That is one of the interesting differences

between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Does it concern

you, not specifically that your views on the Queen, but there have

been murmurings from some people of look if you're going to have

independence, there must be must be some vision of what you want to do,

rather than just have, you're not in the United Kingdom any more. Is

this an example, this effort to make independence look exactly the

same as staying in the UK and with the risk people say, sorry what is

the point? Yes it is true f you go back to the 70s when there was a

more powerism Republican tradition in the SNP. They loved the stuff of

the house of Windsor and going to the receptions. But I think I

understand why the SNP have shifted policy on the royalty, the Queen's

popular and there will be change already with independence. One of

the thins we have to talk about is about the powers, because Britain

as a country is distorted by crown powers, we're talk about this when

the Scottish affairs committee has published a report on the crown

estate. A body that is unaccountable and could have great

potential. A final thought from Magnus Linklater, we are talking

about how the criticism was a particular members of Royal Family,

rather than royalty after the death of Diana. How dependent is the

current warmth on the Queen and could that change? In the culture

we're in, could some misbehaviour create problems? I think the jury's

out on that and there will be a lot of speculation about whether Prince

Charles is likely to prove as popular as the Queen. It should

jump a generation and there is erd that Prince William and Kate are,

will be hugely pop raw Lahr. I think it will carry on for some

time. -- hugely popular. We have to leave it there. Thank yu. Time to