:00:06. > :00:10.Newsnight Scotland special debate. Tonight, we're discussing the
:00:10. > :00:14.Monarchy. The new royal baby is just a week old and his arrival has
:00:14. > :00:17.inspired an age-old debate in Scottish and British society.
:00:18. > :00:27.Whatever the political future of Scotland, do we need a king or queen
:00:28. > :00:35.
:00:35. > :00:39.in Glasgow by a panel representing four different strands of opinion.
:00:39. > :00:43.Jackson Carlaw is a Conservative MSP who is happy with the status quo
:00:43. > :00:46.both in terms of monarchy and union. Christine Grahame is an SNP MSP who
:00:46. > :00:51.supports independence, and would like to see an elected head of state
:00:51. > :00:55.in Scotland. Vince Mills is a Labour activist who wants to see a United
:00:55. > :00:58.Kingdom, but without a royal family. Michael Fry is an author who wants
:00:58. > :01:07.to see an independent Scotland with the present Royal Family providing
:01:07. > :01:10.the head of state. Also with me tonight on this side of the studio
:01:10. > :01:13.is the academic historian Dr Jenny Wormald, formerly of Oxford
:01:13. > :01:20.University, now of Edinburgh University, to make sure we don't
:01:20. > :01:25.stray too far into the realms of historical fantasy. Let's give them
:01:25. > :01:32.all a warm welcome. APPLAUSE
:01:32. > :01:39.The questions come from our audience. Let's go to our first one.
:01:39. > :01:44.What do you think we need a monarch for? I mean the monarch is our head
:01:44. > :01:48.of state. We need a head of state. I think in some respects if we were
:01:48. > :01:52.starting from scratch, perhaps we wouldn't have a hereditary monarchy.
:01:53. > :01:58.I think it unlikely, but I think people in the country after having
:01:58. > :02:05.lived with the monarchy are either supportive of it or are just
:02:06. > :02:09.generally content. I don't sense any great campaign or fever to change
:02:09. > :02:14.the present arrangement and I think therefore, we have a head of state
:02:14. > :02:20.and we happen to have a fortunate with the one we have got who has
:02:20. > :02:30.exercised her role and is respected the world over.
:02:30. > :02:30.
:02:30. > :02:36.Christine Grahame? These are modern times. Times have moved on and you
:02:36. > :02:42.have to question why title brings privilege, why someone born into a
:02:42. > :02:49.title and brings privilege and it is a per mid-of privilege that works
:02:49. > :02:53.through the aristocracy and I can't support that. I believe in a
:02:53. > :02:57.gallatarian state. The Queen has worked hard, but at the end of her
:02:57. > :03:07.Rayne I would like to consider the position of Scotland becoming a
:03:07. > :03:09.
:03:09. > :03:14.republic with the leaver of our people. I'm a democrat. The party's
:03:14. > :03:17.position is for the monarchy to continue? Most political parties,
:03:17. > :03:21.and perhaps the Conservative Party and most political parties has its
:03:21. > :03:24.share of monarchists and people somewhere in between that want a
:03:24. > :03:28.limited monarchy so there is nothing unusual about this and I'm a
:03:28. > :03:31.democrat within my party and outside my party and at the moment the party
:03:31. > :03:34.wishes to retain the monarch why I as head of state and if and when
:03:34. > :03:42.Scotland becomes independent, a queen would be head of state in
:03:42. > :03:46.Scotland and I would accept that. At some later stage when we are
:03:46. > :03:49.independent and it is up to the Government I would hope rereconsider
:03:49. > :03:53.the position as to whether or not we want a monarchy, a limited monarchy.
:03:53. > :03:57.What I would want is a republic. How quickly would you want the vote
:03:57. > :04:05.to take place? I think there are more important things. The fact that
:04:05. > :04:12.we have a baby born. I'm glad it was a health healthy birth. In Scotland
:04:12. > :04:18.one in four children is in poverty. We have foodbanks in Scotland. I
:04:18. > :04:23.would like to see us dealing with the priorities. I would want us to
:04:23. > :04:26.tackle social injustice and poverty first. That would be top of the
:04:26. > :04:32.agenda. I want to hear from members of our
:04:32. > :04:38.audience. Perhaps we can come back to the questioner. What's your view?
:04:39. > :04:43.I believe we need a head of state to put our, as a figure head to put our
:04:43. > :04:47.faith in in times of crisis. And why do you think a monarch does
:04:47. > :04:51.that or would perform that function better than an elected head of
:04:51. > :04:55.state? Well, maybe perhaps not better than an elected person, but
:04:55. > :05:00.it has been in place and it is an established system, but like
:05:00. > :05:07.Christine, I think that once Queen Elizabeth's Rayne is over we could
:05:07. > :05:13.move on to an elected head of state. The gentleman on the front row here.
:05:13. > :05:18.Christine pointed out there is issues to do with social justice.
:05:18. > :05:21.Those are nothing to do with what the Queen does as a function. I
:05:21. > :05:26.disagree with you. I was asked what my priorities would
:05:26. > :05:30.be. That's my priority social justice and to rid Scotland's
:05:30. > :05:33.children of poverty. The Queen doesn't have any role in
:05:34. > :05:39.poverty. This is a separate issue about the
:05:39. > :05:45.constitution and whether or not the historical existence of a monarch
:05:45. > :05:51.requires to be continued for another 100 years. Its a separate debate. I
:05:51. > :05:56.was asked my my priorities. Do you favour the continuation of the
:05:56. > :06:02.monarchy? Well, yes. The monarchy brings stability to our country. It
:06:02. > :06:07.brings tradition and Scotland is about a deep deeply traditional
:06:07. > :06:10.country when we think back to the Stewart kings. We can't lose our
:06:10. > :06:17.monarchy. It would be ridiculous to do so.
:06:17. > :06:19.But they are not Stewarts anymore. But that's part of the hersage.
:06:19. > :06:28.heritage. We have got to remember this baby
:06:28. > :06:38.wasn't sitting in the room going -- womb going "I want to be born into
:06:38. > :06:38.
:06:38. > :06:42.the Royal Family. " You can't decide this child's future or any other
:06:42. > :06:48.child's future. Do you think that the change to social circumstances
:06:48. > :06:53.might have more of a bearing on those who are being lined up as
:06:53. > :06:57.future monarchs? Well, they will have a major bearing, but I don't
:06:57. > :07:01.think that's relevant to the child. You have got to remember it is a
:07:01. > :07:09.week old baby and we shouldn't be slapping labels on it as of yet.
:07:09. > :07:16.Vince Millennium Stadium? I think -- Vince Mills. The monarchy is
:07:16. > :07:20.undemocratic and not just talking about the powers powers that the
:07:20. > :07:25.monarch has, it is about the fact that through the royal prerogative,
:07:25. > :07:28.the current Government has the right to take the country to war without
:07:28. > :07:36.the permission of Parliament. They make treaties and appoint civil
:07:36. > :07:43.serve Abts and -- servants and those are not powers you can dismiss.
:07:43. > :07:46.Margaret Thatcher's attack on the GCQU workers in 1984 was through the
:07:46. > :07:49.royal prerogative when she said she wanted to change their conditions
:07:49. > :07:58.and the change she made they weren't allowed to join trade unions. What
:07:58. > :08:01.we have got at the core of the British state as is a undemocratic
:08:01. > :08:05.head of state and we need to change that.
:08:05. > :08:10.Michael? In any state or political system it is good idea to have a
:08:10. > :08:13.separation of powers and powers constituency tutds in different ways
:08:13. > :08:18.-- constituted in different ways. In the United Kingdom and as things
:08:18. > :08:28.stand in an independent Scotland of the future, it looks as if we would
:08:28. > :08:34.
:08:34. > :08:41.have a highly centralised political system where the executive is
:08:41. > :08:45.omnipitent. I think it is better to have a head of state that is in no
:08:45. > :08:51.way wa beHolden to political parties who rises above all political
:08:51. > :08:55.parties and the Queen is much more popular and does her job much better
:08:55. > :09:00.than our politicians. Our politicians in recent years have
:09:00. > :09:05.become objects of contempt. Many of them are corrupt. We have had
:09:05. > :09:15.sleaze. We have had expenses scandals. And now, we've got
:09:15. > :09:16.
:09:16. > :09:23.lobbying. These are always in which our political system has gone wrong.
:09:23. > :09:30.There are occasionally Royal scandals? But they are of a more
:09:30. > :09:34.entertaining side. Profess Jenny Wormald or the
:09:34. > :09:43.original question was what do we need a monarch for? One answer is
:09:43. > :09:48.tourism. Mary qoEn Mary Queen Queen of Scots was great for tourism. We
:09:48. > :09:52.need the monarchy because whether it is undemocratic or not, it doesn't
:09:52. > :09:57.have power. The royal prerogative does not mean that the present
:09:57. > :10:00.monarchy has the power to act. If it wants control of power it would be
:10:00. > :10:07.more important to think of Parliament insisting that it whats
:10:07. > :10:17.the right to say whether we go to war or not. The Scots are very,
:10:17. > :10:21.
:10:22. > :10:28.very, very deep deeply entrenched in being a monarchical kingdom. The
:10:28. > :10:33.Scots began the fight and began the revolution, but when the English
:10:33. > :10:39.beheaded the Scottish King, they howled blue murder. The right thing
:10:39. > :10:43.to do was have a monarch. I'm not sure that anyone has found an
:10:43. > :10:48.alternative which really is stats factory. I would like to --
:10:48. > :10:57.satisfactory. Christine, you after all as I remember in 2008, wanted
:10:57. > :11:05.Mary Queen of Scots brought back to be buried here. Why? Possibly
:11:05. > :11:12.because of the by-election next door. A response to that? It seems
:11:12. > :11:16.ironic that she is buried next to the person that beheaded her. I had
:11:16. > :11:24.the papacy on my side which was a strange experience for me which
:11:24. > :11:28.supported me. A fresh question. In relation to the
:11:28. > :11:34.economic impact. Kenneth Duffy has our next question. Does the panel
:11:34. > :11:39.agree that the monarchy more than pays its way when we compare the
:11:39. > :11:46.cost to the taxpayer to the revenues it brings into the country? Does the
:11:46. > :11:48.monarchy more than pay its way? may get a good insight into that.
:11:48. > :11:53.The Public Accounts Committee in the Westminster Parliament is going to
:11:53. > :11:58.have a look at the finance and the monarchy. To be honest with you,
:11:58. > :12:01.considering that they are going to get 15% of the Crown Estates as I
:12:01. > :12:10.understand which is the new deal that's been cut, and they will come
:12:10. > :12:15.to some �450 million inside 2020 -- in 2020, do we get a reasonable
:12:15. > :12:22.return for that? I will tell you what the press secretary, the
:12:22. > :12:28.private secretary of Charles back in the mid-80s, he said the Royals did
:12:28. > :12:33.a good job for working five days a week -- three days a week and
:12:33. > :12:38.pretend it was hard. The monarchy will contribute �1.5
:12:38. > :12:43.billion to the British economy in 2013 and has a value going forward
:12:43. > :12:53.of more than �50 billion. That would seem to be good value against the
:12:53. > :12:57.
:12:57. > :13:02.figures that you have just quoted? lot of that is exploiting the assets
:13:02. > :13:08.that they own. It is not so much the monarchy as the estate that goes
:13:08. > :13:13.with it that is generating the income. I think the economic case is
:13:13. > :13:19.inarguable. I think it more than pays its way. The British Royal
:13:19. > :13:23.Family costs significantly less than many of the European royal families,
:13:23. > :13:29.royal families of much smaller states than the United Kingdom. The
:13:29. > :13:34.cost of the Royal Family has declined by 25% since 2008 as a
:13:35. > :13:39.reflection of the comment -- current economic circumstances. A few weeks
:13:40. > :13:44.ago I went to Balmoral. It was full of Italians, French and Americans.
:13:44. > :13:50.They were not there for any reason other than it was the home of the
:13:50. > :13:54.Queen. So I think Scotland benefits... It is the active home of
:13:54. > :13:57.the sovereign. I think it is also true of tourists who come to
:13:57. > :14:02.Edinburgh and the rest of the country. When the baby was born last
:14:02. > :14:06.week, would any other president in the world, if they had had a great
:14:06. > :14:13.grandchild born to them last week, would it have been of any interest
:14:13. > :14:16.to anyone at all? Yet in the modern age, it is almost as if the
:14:16. > :14:20.technological age has made our Royal Family accessible beyond these
:14:20. > :14:26.shores, and has made them more appealing. People want to see,
:14:27. > :14:33.participate and look at Royal Britain. Let's see what our audience
:14:33. > :14:38.think of this one. Gentleman in the second row. Is it morally right, in
:14:38. > :14:43.a time where we have food banks, where taxpayers are paying to
:14:43. > :14:52.maintain one of the richest families and their very elevated privileges?
:14:52. > :14:57.You don't think they are value for money? Identity we should have them.
:14:57. > :15:07.Gentleman behind you? I keep hearing these figures pulled out of the sky
:15:07. > :15:12.that the Royal Family things in such and such amount. I think these
:15:12. > :15:18.figures are just being used to back up these arguments. I did some
:15:18. > :15:23.research before I came on the programme, and I looked at what it
:15:23. > :15:28.cost the Irish for their president. He is paid 40% more than the
:15:28. > :15:34.president of the United States. Can we really justified, in a country of
:15:34. > :15:36.5 million people, that we have a president who could have the same
:15:36. > :15:45.sort of earnings that they have in Ireland for a president, when we
:15:45. > :15:50.have a queen and a wall family who bring in revenue, and make us feel
:15:50. > :15:55.proud and a recognised family throughout the world. Jackson is
:15:55. > :16:02.saying about all the attractions and of the baby being born. On radio
:16:02. > :16:09.four, one of my favourite programmes, by the way, radio four
:16:09. > :16:14.had complaints about the overkill of the coverage of this birth. I think
:16:14. > :16:19.the Royal Family are great at PR. I applaud them. They are great at
:16:19. > :16:24.reinventing themselves and presenting themselves. And good luck
:16:24. > :16:28.to them. But to say they are bringing in all this money. The
:16:28. > :16:34.Financial Times analysed it, and said that there was no evidence that
:16:34. > :16:39.tourism was boosted per se by the Royal Family. People don't go to the
:16:39. > :16:43.Eiffel Tower because there is a king there. They don't go to Edinburgh
:16:43. > :16:49.Castle to see the Queen hanging out her washing there. They go to see
:16:49. > :16:54.the castle. Revenue is coming in any way. It is to do with what we have
:16:54. > :16:59.and our history. It is not to do with the people who are there. If
:16:59. > :17:03.you take the example of the birth of the baby, the people standing
:17:03. > :17:08.outside the palace were tourists. It was a smaller number than you would
:17:08. > :17:12.expect, who were then not because of the Royal Family, but because they
:17:13. > :17:19.were in London anyway. You are scoffing away, that there is no
:17:19. > :17:24.evidence. I have asked for the official costs. The official cost is
:17:24. > :17:27.given at about 32 million to 34 million. But that doesn't take into
:17:27. > :17:36.account the security and everything else. They are not frank about the
:17:36. > :17:41.money they have. The Duchy of Cornwall, which is, of course, the
:17:41. > :17:47.Prince of Wales, will not even declare what it is taking. It
:17:47. > :17:54.doesn't pay tax! That �200 million figure is used by a campaign group,
:17:54. > :18:04.but we have always quoted figures from the consultancy brand
:18:04. > :18:05.
:18:05. > :18:11.Finance... But these are additional other costs. There are estimates
:18:11. > :18:17.that tourists visiting sites associated with the monarchy
:18:17. > :18:22.generating... But they are sites associated with the monarchy. The
:18:22. > :18:26.cost is with the presidency in Ireland - it is 100 times more
:18:26. > :18:33.costly to pay for the monarchy in Scotland than it was for Mary
:18:33. > :18:42.Robinson, who did a great job. Queen is now number 78 in the Sunday
:18:42. > :18:47.Times Rich List. She is going down the Rich List. -- number 58. All
:18:47. > :18:52.these Russian oligarchs are ahead of her, and they don't even pay tax in
:18:52. > :19:01.this country. The Queen does now pay tax. The Queen has a lot of well. I
:19:02. > :19:05.am not claiming she is poor. But it is all tied up in Rembrandts. You
:19:05. > :19:10.cannot consume these things in the way that other people consume
:19:10. > :19:15.income. Of course, when she has David Cameron to one of his
:19:15. > :19:20.audiences, she puts on an electric fire. No doubt when he goes out the
:19:20. > :19:25.room she turns one bar off! The Queen is no longer a super rich
:19:25. > :19:32.person by British standards. The people who have brought in these
:19:32. > :19:37.non-taxpaying oligarchs are, again, the political parties, both Labour
:19:37. > :19:43.and Conservative. There are a lot of hands up, and I want to get as many
:19:43. > :19:47.voices in as possible. And I want our next question. If the Scottish
:19:47. > :19:55.public were to vote yes in next year 's referendum, will the people of
:19:55. > :20:01.Scotland get the chance to take part in another referendum, whether the
:20:01. > :20:08.Queen would be the head of state? That was the policy of the SNP, the
:20:08. > :20:16.main force in the independence campaign. Is that still the policy?
:20:16. > :20:19.The point about a referendum, should there be a referendum, would be for
:20:20. > :20:24.the government of Scotland to decide. We don't know what that
:20:24. > :20:29.government would be, because a referendum and a yes vote is in for
:20:29. > :20:38.an SNP government. It is to deliver independence for Scotland, which I
:20:38. > :20:41.wholly support. After that, there will be a negotiation and we will
:20:41. > :20:43.have general elections. It will depend on what happens. It will also
:20:43. > :20:50.depend on whether the people of Scotland want to have a referendum.
:20:51. > :20:56.It is all down to the people of Scotland, collectively. Isn't there
:20:56. > :21:01.a danger of a bit of referendum fatigue? We are going to have a
:21:01. > :21:10.referendum of independence, and then I presume we would have to draw up a
:21:10. > :21:13.new constitution. Presumably we would have a referendum on that!
:21:13. > :21:18.Maybe we should have a referendum on the European Union. I didn't say it
:21:18. > :21:27.was mandatory. I said it was up to the government. You said it was up
:21:27. > :21:32.to the people. I don't think we should have too many referendums.
:21:33. > :21:38.Christine, you were quoted as saying it was the policy of the SNP to have
:21:38. > :21:48.a referendum. But I was wrong. Isn't that nice? Politician saying she was
:21:48. > :21:49.
:21:49. > :21:57.wrong! There are lots of hands up. Gentleman on the front row. What
:21:57. > :22:01.about the ladies in the audience? have so few, by the way. Isn't it
:22:01. > :22:05.true that the SNP are scared to come out here right now and say they want
:22:05. > :22:15.to get wood of the monarchy. Everybody knows it, but you will not
:22:15. > :22:15.
:22:15. > :22:20.say it. -- get rid of the monarchy. I colleagues who are very keen
:22:20. > :22:26.monarchists in the party, some who are indifferent, and some who are
:22:26. > :22:34.Republicans. We are a party with a range of views. I am telling you the
:22:34. > :22:39.facts. If you believe in an educated population, it was suggested that as
:22:39. > :22:46.a head of state you could appoint someone at random. What about that?
:22:46. > :22:51.It solves everybody's problem? not a fact that there was only one
:22:51. > :22:59.referendum we are talking about tonight, which is a referendum in or
:22:59. > :23:07.out of Europe? That is the referendum you are after! Isn't
:23:07. > :23:11.there a question on the tangible benefit of running referendum rims
:23:11. > :23:20.-- referendums? What ticket would head of state stand on, being
:23:20. > :23:30.nonpolitical and so forth? Convince? What ticket would ahead of state
:23:30. > :23:34.
:23:34. > :23:44.stand on? What is his or her ticket? Went Mary Robinson stood in Ireland,
:23:44. > :23:45.
:23:45. > :23:49.she said supported by a coalition of forces. She stood firm on the right
:23:49. > :23:54.-- modernising the Republic of Ireland. If we did have that kind of
:23:54. > :23:57.contest in Scotland, that is the kind of candidate we would get.
:23:57. > :24:04.if there was a yes vote in the independence referendum on, your
:24:04. > :24:12.view is that we should have a vote on the monarchy? Yes, but I would be
:24:12. > :24:17.interested in Christine's view. If the constitution was going to be put
:24:17. > :24:23.to a vote, then to some extent, that would function as a sort of
:24:23. > :24:27.referendum on whether or not the Scottish people would want on it as
:24:27. > :24:37.a head of state. I think there would need to be some thinking through on
:24:37. > :24:42.how it would deal with that. First of all, a referendum on the
:24:42. > :24:45.constitution and another referendum on aspects of that... A lot of
:24:45. > :24:53.referendums. Said to say that you disagree with your party leader on
:24:53. > :25:02.this issue. -- fair to say. I would like a referendum on the monarchy,
:25:02. > :25:09.and it doesn't have to be post-yes. It could be post no. And is the
:25:09. > :25:14.range of opinion as varied in the SNP as Christine says? I would guess
:25:15. > :25:21.so. I don't know, because of the different traditions of the parties.
:25:21. > :25:25.The Republican position may be stronger in the Labour movement.
:25:25. > :25:31.this point, in a global context over time, the monarchy is becoming more
:25:31. > :25:38.or less popular? I would think this monarchy is becoming more popular.
:25:38. > :25:43.There are some signs that it remains so, compared to some decades ago. I
:25:43. > :25:47.am extremely worried about this. My historical head is just spinning. We
:25:47. > :25:53.are going to have a referendum for all sort of things. We might have a
:25:53. > :25:58.referendum if there is a yes vote for independence, or if there is a
:25:58. > :26:06.no vote. There are such huge things to be thought out. The whole
:26:07. > :26:16.question of the monarchy... I would like the monarchy to give us their
:26:16. > :26:19.view, because its position is going to be intolerably difficult. Whether
:26:19. > :26:28.the people want on one or not, something has got to be done to sort
:26:28. > :26:33.out what is the head of state in a kingdom, for the sake of argument,
:26:33. > :26:43.cut off and independent of England? -- whether the people want a monarch
:26:43. > :26:49.
:26:49. > :26:57.or not. But this is not just Britain... Globally?Couple of
:26:57. > :27:07.points. I start from the perspective that it is the will of the Scottish
:27:07. > :27:10.
:27:10. > :27:18.people to have a monarch. Dennis can a man says he -- Dennis Caliban says
:27:18. > :27:23.he favours... It is a distraction from the very profound decision that
:27:23. > :27:27.the people of Scotland have got to make. It is regrettable. It is all
:27:27. > :27:32.very well for him to say it is a personal expression of his own view,
:27:32. > :27:38.but he is the chairman of the Yes campaign. Can I touch on one other
:27:38. > :27:43.point? There was a gentleman asked what ticket they would stand on? I
:27:43. > :27:47.sit in a Scottish parliament that was supposed to be nonparty
:27:47. > :27:53.political. It was supposed to bring in all the talents of the Scottish
:27:53. > :27:56.people, such as business people, with no political affiliation. Our
:27:56. > :28:06.system is geared towards party politics. The attraction of the
:28:06. > :28:14.monarchy is it is above that. If there was a vote for a head of
:28:14. > :28:19.state, Labour would have a candidate and the SNP would have a candidate.
:28:19. > :28:28.Would Jackson Carlaw not have the ticket as well? It would be tribal
:28:28. > :28:32.politics. Somebody who is pro-independence and promonarchy, do
:28:32. > :28:40.you think having the chairman of the Yes Campaign throw in the idea of a
:28:40. > :28:46.referendum on the monarchy is helpful or not? Well, he is an
:28:46. > :28:52.admirable man and his political judgement is disastrous and that's
:28:52. > :28:58.another example. With Jackson, if Britain had been a republic all
:28:58. > :29:03.these years then it is highly likely that at certain points Margaret
:29:03. > :29:06.Thatcher would have been president of the republic. At a later stage
:29:06. > :29:09.Tony Blair would have been president of the republic. If you think of the
:29:09. > :29:13.horror of having either these figures as heads of state compared
:29:13. > :29:20.with the Queen. Who are we going to be loyal to? Half the population
:29:20. > :29:24.would be disloyal to Tony Blair and to Margaret Thatcher. Whereas the
:29:24. > :29:26.entire population apart from a small republican minority can be loyal to
:29:26. > :29:33.the Queen. Thank you very much indeed. Another
:29:33. > :29:38.question. Next one comes from Jim Watson. Jim. In the past week my
:29:38. > :29:42.family has extended itself further. My nephew has got a beautiful baby
:29:42. > :29:47.boy and my niece also delivered a beautiful boy as well. But none of
:29:47. > :29:51.these made the media or got any coverage at all curiously enough.
:29:51. > :29:59.Does the panel think the coverage given to the recent addition to the
:29:59. > :30:05.Royal Family was fair and balanced? Or was it indicative of an inherent
:30:05. > :30:13.bias been within the BBC for all things royal? Michael? It is always
:30:13. > :30:17.nice to see a lovely baby all sweet and cuddly. And I think any British
:30:17. > :30:22.baby born or indeed, Scottish baby born in the last week who was as
:30:22. > :30:30.beautiful as this one is would equally attract the admiration of
:30:30. > :30:35.the public, but I mean the fact is that this boy, it is not the baby's
:30:35. > :30:38.fault that everyone and he doesn't even know, but this boy will one day
:30:38. > :30:45.be King, the boy who was born to be King and so for that, the head of
:30:45. > :30:53.this state. For that reason, he is at least interesting. OK. You
:30:53. > :30:58.thought the coverage was fair and balanced? I mean, how can you expect
:30:58. > :31:04.-- stop it? It is nice we have a celebrity who doesn't care what the
:31:04. > :31:09.media are saying about him. Christine? Someone said this is the
:31:09. > :31:12.people's pregnancy. I have had my two. It was over the top. And
:31:12. > :31:16.actually, as somebody who doesn't support having a Royal Family, it
:31:17. > :31:20.was, I think, it was over the top and did them a disservice because if
:31:20. > :31:25.anything it helped the republican movement because it was just too
:31:25. > :31:31.much. And whereas papers follow the editorial line I think that the BBC,
:31:31. > :31:36.I say this sitting at the BBC have a duty to broadcast for the nation at
:31:36. > :31:42.large and it didn't do that and it gave acres and acres over when
:31:42. > :31:48.nothing was happening. In fact, at one point, Nicholas Witchell even
:31:48. > :31:53.said that the BBC has a public service duty that others don't have
:31:53. > :31:59.and what we in fact was Nicholas Witchell getting his words mangled
:31:59. > :32:06.and saying she is in the early stages of pregnancy. I couldn't get
:32:06. > :32:11.away from it. I have seen Miss Marple and then I would switch back
:32:11. > :32:17.to watch the evening news and it was wall to wall of nothing happening!
:32:17. > :32:19.Let's get views from our audience. Do you think there is a balance to
:32:19. > :32:24.be struck between the economic benefit we can get from a Royal
:32:24. > :32:28.Family and respecting the rights of this poor child who whats come into
:32:28. > :32:34.the world and doesn't know any better and is the subject of every
:32:34. > :32:39.front page? Is that the media's fault or the family's fault? Very
:32:39. > :32:45.much the media. It is only to be expected that there
:32:45. > :32:49.is going to be so much media attention around the royal birth.
:32:49. > :32:55.The media wouldn't be covering things that are not of interest to
:32:55. > :32:59.the public and the Queen and the Royal Family have given a an amazing
:32:59. > :33:03.service to the people of Scotland over the past 60 years it is
:33:03. > :33:06.inevitable there will be massive public interest in it.
:33:06. > :33:10.I agree with the gentleman there. It is inevitable. I think if you look
:33:10. > :33:14.back at the celebrations last year surrounding the Queen and
:33:14. > :33:18.everything... The jubilee?Yeah, everyone was really excited by that
:33:18. > :33:24.and fundamentally for me, it took some of the media attention away
:33:24. > :33:34.from England throwns thrownsing Australia in the Ashes. .
:33:34. > :33:35.
:33:35. > :33:45.Vince Mills? The front page I liked best was the Private Eye which was"
:33:45. > :33:46.
:33:46. > :33:52.woman has baby. " I almost got to the fact of feeling sorry for the
:33:52. > :33:59.BBC reporters on news 24 who were parked outside the hospital. There
:33:59. > :34:02.was a lot of airtime that seemed to be required to be filled! I don't
:34:02. > :34:06.see how anybody could j you have that no matter what position they
:34:06. > :34:10.take in the monarchy. I am a monarchist, a supporter of
:34:10. > :34:14.the monarchy. I was surprised by the extent of the coverage myself, but I
:34:14. > :34:18.think it is unfair to talk about the BBC. All the major American networks
:34:18. > :34:23.were there. All the major television stations from every country in the
:34:23. > :34:26.world were there. They weren't serving anything other than an
:34:26. > :34:34.interest in their own country and an appetite for stories about the Royal
:34:34. > :34:42.Family. It did get overwhelming the coverage. The ex-at any time to it,
:34:42. > :34:47.I remember when Leo Blair was born, we had lots of coverage of Leo on
:34:47. > :34:51.the steps of Number Ten with his parents. The newspaper is full from
:34:51. > :34:56.week to week of the babies of film stars and celebrities so there is a
:34:56. > :35:00.general appetite in this particular instance for people it is a unique
:35:00. > :35:04.circumstance. There is no other nation on earth that can look a
:35:04. > :35:08.century forward and see a continuity of its history reaching in that
:35:08. > :35:18.direction in the same way that they can look back and for many people
:35:18. > :35:18.
:35:18. > :35:22.that's just a comforting thought. it OK for the royals to be part of
:35:22. > :35:26.the clebity culture? Partly the connection here was that for people
:35:26. > :35:29.in Britain they were looking so far into the future and I think you know
:35:29. > :35:33.the interesting thing is even republicans according to a poll at
:35:33. > :35:37.the weekend don't see much prospect of a republic this century and
:35:37. > :35:40.that's a feeling that's shared amongst all generation. The
:35:40. > :35:43.remarkable thing is the number of younger people who are comfortable
:35:43. > :35:50.of looking forward to the idea of a monarchy.
:35:50. > :35:54.It time is against us. Neil Grant is our next question. We live in a
:35:54. > :36:00.multi-religious and nonreligious society. Is it appropriate that the
:36:00. > :36:08.monarch is the head of the Church of England? Is it appropriate that the
:36:08. > :36:12.monarch is the head of the Church of England? Jackson? Well, I'm an
:36:12. > :36:15.atheist, Glen. The religious connotation is not something that
:36:15. > :36:19.troubles me. The element of discrimination is something I prefer
:36:19. > :36:23.not to see. Prince Charles talked about being the Defender of the
:36:23. > :36:30.Faiths. That would be better?I'm conscious that those people who wish
:36:30. > :36:33.to seek to try and change this, the legislative implications of so doing
:36:33. > :36:37.are so exhaustive in terms of the way it would have to filter through
:36:37. > :36:41.so much of the legislation that exists, that we could tie our
:36:41. > :36:46.inefficiency up in knots doing it. I don't think it is an ideal position.
:36:46. > :36:52.But it is the one that is there. And I think from my point of view, it is
:36:52. > :36:56.all relatively benign. But haven't they in short order, in
:36:56. > :37:01.consultation of the countries of the Commonwealth managed to change the
:37:02. > :37:05.nature of succession to allow first-born females? Getting that
:37:05. > :37:11.agreement across all the nations of the Commonwealth actually was
:37:11. > :37:17.problematic. It wasn't... It was swiftly done? It took time. I think
:37:17. > :37:19.the actual implication in relation to the broader unravelling of the
:37:19. > :37:24.monarchy in terms of the institutions within the United
:37:24. > :37:28.Kingdom is a much more fundamental change and I just wonder whether
:37:28. > :37:32.that's something we want to preoccupy ourselves doing. Prince
:37:32. > :37:35.Charles talked about having a broader role as defender of faiths.
:37:35. > :37:38.That would be better? In a multi-racial country we want
:37:38. > :37:43.everybody in the country to feel that loyalty and that same affection
:37:43. > :37:47.for the monarchy. Vince Mills? They have to take out
:37:47. > :37:57.the bit that does not allow the monarch to be a Catholic either. And
:37:57. > :38:08.
:38:08. > :38:16.I think in a sense that shows you what old institution it is.
:38:16. > :38:22.Are you happy with the monarch being the head of England?
:38:22. > :38:29.Who does not have religious affiliations as job of the job
:38:29. > :38:35.specification. Jenny Wormald Can I bring you in?
:38:35. > :38:41.Well, the context here is that the monarchy in fact the people of
:38:41. > :38:44.England and Scotland have remarkably worked this one out very well.
:38:44. > :38:48.Whether the monarch as far as the Scots are concerned is head of the
:38:48. > :38:54.Church of England, has nothing whatsoever to do with us. In the
:38:54. > :38:59.17th century, people went to war over religion, over trying to impose
:38:59. > :39:02.religion on the three kingdoms. Today, the Queen is a religious
:39:02. > :39:05.schizophrenic. She is head of the Church of England. She is an
:39:05. > :39:08.ordinary member of the church in Scotland. She is happy with that and
:39:08. > :39:11.it works. There are plenty of problems about the monarch as head
:39:11. > :39:16.of the Church of England now which are showing up more and more and
:39:16. > :39:20.that will have to be discussed. But I would have thought that Scotland
:39:20. > :39:26.has got plenty to think about without getting embroiled in
:39:26. > :39:36.something that's not its business. The lady on the aisle there. How can
:39:36. > :39:43.a monarch who is a defender of one faith be a member of another church?
:39:43. > :39:48.That's surely wrong. You think that seems strange. It is not a question
:39:48. > :39:54.that's asked today. It is not for, I cannot explain why. It seems much
:39:54. > :40:00.more logical that any one person should have one faith, but if has
:40:00. > :40:10.emerged in a way that it is imposed on the monarch that that is the
:40:10. > :40:14.
:40:14. > :40:19.situation that we don't expect her to try and Angela Anglocise.
:40:19. > :40:27.She can't be both. Well, she is. It is not right. If you are the head
:40:27. > :40:32.of a church that you are given that right by God so to speak, you can't
:40:32. > :40:36.be surely be a member of a different church. She has given the position
:40:36. > :40:38.as head of the Church of England by Act of Parliament. I don't know what
:40:39. > :40:43.God thought of the matter when Henry VIII set this up.
:40:43. > :40:48.You think it is wrong and should be changed? Yeah.Thank you very much
:40:48. > :40:56.indeed for making that point. The gentleman there. I guess from
:40:56. > :41:01.the point of view what religion is now, it doesn't matter what the
:41:01. > :41:05.Queen or monarch follows what their religious opinion is or whether they
:41:05. > :41:08.have an atheist. There is a problem if you have a leader of a religion
:41:08. > :41:14.and the head of state wearing two hats at the same time. You have
:41:14. > :41:17.issues when it comes to discrimination, it is not something
:41:17. > :41:20.that makes them truth worthy. There is a massive problem when you have
:41:20. > :41:25.one person trying to wear two hats at the same time. OK, thank you very
:41:25. > :41:28.much indeed for that and the gentleman on this side. If if you
:41:28. > :41:32.are a member of the Church of England and the head of the church
:41:32. > :41:35.as the Queen. The Queen is also a member of the Church of Scotland. So
:41:36. > :41:41.one faith, one God. It the doesn't matter.
:41:41. > :41:46.OK. Thank you very much indeed. Let's go back to our pam. Michael
:41:46. > :41:48.Fry -- our panel, Michael Fry, the question was about the monarch's
:41:48. > :41:53.role as head of the Church of England and whether that was
:41:53. > :41:58.appropriate? Well, as Jenny said, it is really a historical problem, but
:41:58. > :42:03.you know, we have to the start from where we are. The Queen is head of
:42:03. > :42:08.the Church of England by Act of Parliament and in order to change
:42:08. > :42:13.that, she would have to disestablish the Church of England. Now, I think
:42:13. > :42:18.the Queen who is a devout Christian is happy being head of the Church of
:42:18. > :42:27.England. I think the Church of England as far as ikedz the Church
:42:27. > :42:35.of England is happy to have the Queen -- I can see, the Church of
:42:35. > :42:41.England is happy to have the Queen as its head. I Is think it would be
:42:41. > :42:47.an awful thing if At yesz -- atheists and other people who are
:42:47. > :42:52.not conformist to this arrangement should step in and say "this should
:42:52. > :42:57.not happen. You are forbidden to be head of the Church of England and
:42:58. > :43:05.you are forbidden to have the monarch as you have for the last 500
:43:05. > :43:15.years almost. " As long as in arrangement doesn't hurt anybody
:43:15. > :43:21.else it should just carry on. Christine Grahame? I am an atheist
:43:21. > :43:28.like Jackson and I am frightened to say something about history. Henry
:43:28. > :43:34.VIII made himself head of the church so he could get rid of the Catholic
:43:34. > :43:39.Church to marry ap anne Berlin. We have got things continuing from way
:43:39. > :43:44.back to Henry VIII. However, it is for me it is not an issue. For
:43:44. > :43:48.England, if they want to continue the rest of the UK with the Queen,
:43:48. > :43:52.as head of the church in England so be it. But you have made an
:43:52. > :43:56.interesting point about how these two issues can settle together. How
:43:56. > :44:00.the head of the Church of England can be an ordinary member of the
:44:00. > :44:04.church of Scotland. There is an issue there. It is one of these
:44:04. > :44:13.constitutional matters that's just been swept under the carpet, but it
:44:13. > :44:16.is a matter for England. Alan, where are you? Go ahead.
:44:16. > :44:20.accept Denis's proposal for an elected head of state, whose names
:44:20. > :44:24.other than the Queen's would the panel like to see on the ballot
:44:24. > :44:28.paper? That's in the event of independence having a referendum and
:44:28. > :44:35.looking to an elected head of state. If it got to that, who should be on
:44:35. > :44:39.the ballot paper? Jackson? think... You have nominated
:44:39. > :44:46.yourself. I would like to see the person that the country would most
:44:46. > :44:53.like to see getting comprehensively wal oped and that would be Alex
:44:53. > :44:57.Salmond! Christine Grahame?That's nasty of you Jackson. I was just
:44:57. > :45:02.beginning to agree with you about things. I want a woman. I'm the only
:45:02. > :45:11.woman here and there is so few women there and yourself, but we can count
:45:11. > :45:16.on one hand so I'm going for Annie Lennox because she is a
:45:16. > :45:23.humanitarian. She is a sensible kind person. She is not affiliated to
:45:23. > :45:33.political parties and she has a wonderful voice.
:45:33. > :45:35.
:45:35. > :45:45.I would tell you who I would like is the Michael Marra. He says" you can
:45:45. > :45:46.
:45:46. > :45:50.bow down to the Prince of Wales and me I'm going to get... " I am a
:45:50. > :46:00.Jacobite at heart. I look to the present Jacobite claimants to the
:46:00. > :46:06.
:46:06. > :46:12.throne of this kingdom of other kingdoms. Sophie von Liechtenstein.
:46:12. > :46:16.Do you have a tip? I was told not to be controversial!
:46:16. > :46:19.Jenny, thank you very much indeed. Thanks to our panel.