29/07/2013 Newsnight Scotland

Newsnight Scotland special debate. Tonight, we're discussing the

Monarchy. The new royal baby is just a week old and his arrival has

inspired an age-old debate in Scottish and British society.

Whatever the political future of Scotland, do we need a king or queen

in Glasgow by a panel representing four different strands of opinion.

Jackson Carlaw is a Conservative MSP who is happy with the status quo

both in terms of monarchy and union. Christine Grahame is an SNP MSP who

supports independence, and would like to see an elected head of state

in Scotland. Vince Mills is a Labour activist who wants to see a United

Kingdom, but without a royal family. Michael Fry is an author who wants

to see an independent Scotland with the present Royal Family providing

the head of state. Also with me tonight on this side of the studio

is the academic historian Dr Jenny Wormald, formerly of Oxford

University, now of Edinburgh University, to make sure we don't

stray too far into the realms of historical fantasy. Let's give them

all a warm welcome. APPLAUSE

The questions come from our audience. Let's go to our first one.

What do you think we need a monarch for? I mean the monarch is our head

of state. We need a head of state. I think in some respects if we were

starting from scratch, perhaps we wouldn't have a hereditary monarchy.

I think it unlikely, but I think people in the country after having

lived with the monarchy are either supportive of it or are just

generally content. I don't sense any great campaign or fever to change

the present arrangement and I think therefore, we have a head of state

and we happen to have a fortunate with the one we have got who has

exercised her role and is respected the world over.

Christine Grahame? These are modern times. Times have moved on and you

have to question why title brings privilege, why someone born into a

title and brings privilege and it is a per mid-of privilege that works

through the aristocracy and I can't support that. I believe in a

gallatarian state. The Queen has worked hard, but at the end of her

Rayne I would like to consider the position of Scotland becoming a

republic with the leaver of our people. I'm a democrat. The party's

position is for the monarchy to continue? Most political parties,

and perhaps the Conservative Party and most political parties has its

share of monarchists and people somewhere in between that want a

limited monarchy so there is nothing unusual about this and I'm a

democrat within my party and outside my party and at the moment the party

wishes to retain the monarch why I as head of state and if and when

Scotland becomes independent, a queen would be head of state in

Scotland and I would accept that. At some later stage when we are

independent and it is up to the Government I would hope rereconsider

the position as to whether or not we want a monarchy, a limited monarchy.

What I would want is a republic. How quickly would you want the vote

to take place? I think there are more important things. The fact that

we have a baby born. I'm glad it was a health healthy birth. In Scotland

one in four children is in poverty. We have foodbanks in Scotland. I

would like to see us dealing with the priorities. I would want us to

tackle social injustice and poverty first. That would be top of the

agenda. I want to hear from members of our

audience. Perhaps we can come back to the questioner. What's your view?

I believe we need a head of state to put our, as a figure head to put our

faith in in times of crisis. And why do you think a monarch does

that or would perform that function better than an elected head of

state? Well, maybe perhaps not better than an elected person, but

it has been in place and it is an established system, but like

Christine, I think that once Queen Elizabeth's Rayne is over we could

move on to an elected head of state. The gentleman on the front row here.

Christine pointed out there is issues to do with social justice.

Those are nothing to do with what the Queen does as a function. I

disagree with you. I was asked what my priorities would

be. That's my priority social justice and to rid Scotland's

children of poverty. The Queen doesn't have any role in

poverty. This is a separate issue about the

constitution and whether or not the historical existence of a monarch

requires to be continued for another 100 years. Its a separate debate. I

was asked my my priorities. Do you favour the continuation of the

monarchy? Well, yes. The monarchy brings stability to our country. It

brings tradition and Scotland is about a deep deeply traditional

country when we think back to the Stewart kings. We can't lose our

monarchy. It would be ridiculous to do so.

But they are not Stewarts anymore. But that's part of the hersage.

heritage. We have got to remember this baby

wasn't sitting in the room going -- womb going "I want to be born into

the Royal Family. " You can't decide this child's future or any other

child's future. Do you think that the change to social circumstances

might have more of a bearing on those who are being lined up as

future monarchs? Well, they will have a major bearing, but I don't

think that's relevant to the child. You have got to remember it is a

week old baby and we shouldn't be slapping labels on it as of yet.

Vince Millennium Stadium? I think -- Vince Mills. The monarchy is

undemocratic and not just talking about the powers powers that the

monarch has, it is about the fact that through the royal prerogative,

the current Government has the right to take the country to war without

the permission of Parliament. They make treaties and appoint civil

serve Abts and -- servants and those are not powers you can dismiss.

Margaret Thatcher's attack on the GCQU workers in 1984 was through the

royal prerogative when she said she wanted to change their conditions

and the change she made they weren't allowed to join trade unions. What

we have got at the core of the British state as is a undemocratic

head of state and we need to change that.

Michael? In any state or political system it is good idea to have a

separation of powers and powers constituency tutds in different ways

-- constituted in different ways. In the United Kingdom and as things

stand in an independent Scotland of the future, it looks as if we would

have a highly centralised political system where the executive is

omnipitent. I think it is better to have a head of state that is in no

way wa beHolden to political parties who rises above all political

parties and the Queen is much more popular and does her job much better

than our politicians. Our politicians in recent years have

become objects of contempt. Many of them are corrupt. We have had

sleaze. We have had expenses scandals. And now, we've got

lobbying. These are always in which our political system has gone wrong.

There are occasionally Royal scandals? But they are of a more

entertaining side. Profess Jenny Wormald or the

original question was what do we need a monarch for? One answer is

tourism. Mary qoEn Mary Queen Queen of Scots was great for tourism. We

need the monarchy because whether it is undemocratic or not, it doesn't

have power. The royal prerogative does not mean that the present

monarchy has the power to act. If it wants control of power it would be

more important to think of Parliament insisting that it whats

the right to say whether we go to war or not. The Scots are very,

very, very deep deeply entrenched in being a monarchical kingdom. The

Scots began the fight and began the revolution, but when the English

beheaded the Scottish King, they howled blue murder. The right thing

to do was have a monarch. I'm not sure that anyone has found an

alternative which really is stats factory. I would like to --

satisfactory. Christine, you after all as I remember in 2008, wanted

Mary Queen of Scots brought back to be buried here. Why? Possibly

because of the by-election next door. A response to that? It seems

ironic that she is buried next to the person that beheaded her. I had

the papacy on my side which was a strange experience for me which

supported me. A fresh question. In relation to the

economic impact. Kenneth Duffy has our next question. Does the panel

agree that the monarchy more than pays its way when we compare the

cost to the taxpayer to the revenues it brings into the country? Does the

monarchy more than pay its way? may get a good insight into that.

The Public Accounts Committee in the Westminster Parliament is going to

have a look at the finance and the monarchy. To be honest with you,

considering that they are going to get 15% of the Crown Estates as I

understand which is the new deal that's been cut, and they will come

to some �450 million inside 2020 -- in 2020, do we get a reasonable

return for that? I will tell you what the press secretary, the

private secretary of Charles back in the mid-80s, he said the Royals did

a good job for working five days a week -- three days a week and

pretend it was hard. The monarchy will contribute �1.5

billion to the British economy in 2013 and has a value going forward

of more than �50 billion. That would seem to be good value against the

figures that you have just quoted? lot of that is exploiting the assets

that they own. It is not so much the monarchy as the estate that goes

with it that is generating the income. I think the economic case is

inarguable. I think it more than pays its way. The British Royal

Family costs significantly less than many of the European royal families,

royal families of much smaller states than the United Kingdom. The

cost of the Royal Family has declined by 25% since 2008 as a

reflection of the comment -- current economic circumstances. A few weeks

ago I went to Balmoral. It was full of Italians, French and Americans.

They were not there for any reason other than it was the home of the

Queen. So I think Scotland benefits... It is the active home of

the sovereign. I think it is also true of tourists who come to

Edinburgh and the rest of the country. When the baby was born last

week, would any other president in the world, if they had had a great

grandchild born to them last week, would it have been of any interest

to anyone at all? Yet in the modern age, it is almost as if the

technological age has made our Royal Family accessible beyond these

shores, and has made them more appealing. People want to see,

participate and look at Royal Britain. Let's see what our audience

think of this one. Gentleman in the second row. Is it morally right, in

a time where we have food banks, where taxpayers are paying to

maintain one of the richest families and their very elevated privileges?

You don't think they are value for money? Identity we should have them.

Gentleman behind you? I keep hearing these figures pulled out of the sky

that the Royal Family things in such and such amount. I think these

figures are just being used to back up these arguments. I did some

research before I came on the programme, and I looked at what it

cost the Irish for their president. He is paid 40% more than the

president of the United States. Can we really justified, in a country of

5 million people, that we have a president who could have the same

sort of earnings that they have in Ireland for a president, when we

have a queen and a wall family who bring in revenue, and make us feel

proud and a recognised family throughout the world. Jackson is

saying about all the attractions and of the baby being born. On radio

four, one of my favourite programmes, by the way, radio four

had complaints about the overkill of the coverage of this birth. I think

the Royal Family are great at PR. I applaud them. They are great at

reinventing themselves and presenting themselves. And good luck

to them. But to say they are bringing in all this money. The

Financial Times analysed it, and said that there was no evidence that

tourism was boosted per se by the Royal Family. People don't go to the

Eiffel Tower because there is a king there. They don't go to Edinburgh

Castle to see the Queen hanging out her washing there. They go to see

the castle. Revenue is coming in any way. It is to do with what we have

and our history. It is not to do with the people who are there. If

you take the example of the birth of the baby, the people standing

outside the palace were tourists. It was a smaller number than you would

expect, who were then not because of the Royal Family, but because they

were in London anyway. You are scoffing away, that there is no

evidence. I have asked for the official costs. The official cost is

given at about 32 million to 34 million. But that doesn't take into

account the security and everything else. They are not frank about the

money they have. The Duchy of Cornwall, which is, of course, the

Prince of Wales, will not even declare what it is taking. It

doesn't pay tax! That �200 million figure is used by a campaign group,

but we have always quoted figures from the consultancy brand

Finance... But these are additional other costs. There are estimates

that tourists visiting sites associated with the monarchy

generating... But they are sites associated with the monarchy. The

cost is with the presidency in Ireland - it is 100 times more

costly to pay for the monarchy in Scotland than it was for Mary

Robinson, who did a great job. Queen is now number 78 in the Sunday

Times Rich List. She is going down the Rich List. -- number 58. All

these Russian oligarchs are ahead of her, and they don't even pay tax in

this country. The Queen does now pay tax. The Queen has a lot of well. I

am not claiming she is poor. But it is all tied up in Rembrandts. You

cannot consume these things in the way that other people consume

income. Of course, when she has David Cameron to one of his

audiences, she puts on an electric fire. No doubt when he goes out the

room she turns one bar off! The Queen is no longer a super rich

person by British standards. The people who have brought in these

non-taxpaying oligarchs are, again, the political parties, both Labour

and Conservative. There are a lot of hands up, and I want to get as many

voices in as possible. And I want our next question. If the Scottish

public were to vote yes in next year 's referendum, will the people of

Scotland get the chance to take part in another referendum, whether the

Queen would be the head of state? That was the policy of the SNP, the

main force in the independence campaign. Is that still the policy?

The point about a referendum, should there be a referendum, would be for

the government of Scotland to decide. We don't know what that

government would be, because a referendum and a yes vote is in for

an SNP government. It is to deliver independence for Scotland, which I

wholly support. After that, there will be a negotiation and we will

have general elections. It will depend on what happens. It will also

depend on whether the people of Scotland want to have a referendum.

It is all down to the people of Scotland, collectively. Isn't there

a danger of a bit of referendum fatigue? We are going to have a

referendum of independence, and then I presume we would have to draw up a

new constitution. Presumably we would have a referendum on that!

Maybe we should have a referendum on the European Union. I didn't say it

was mandatory. I said it was up to the government. You said it was up

to the people. I don't think we should have too many referendums.

Christine, you were quoted as saying it was the policy of the SNP to have

a referendum. But I was wrong. Isn't that nice? Politician saying she was

wrong! There are lots of hands up. Gentleman on the front row. What

about the ladies in the audience? have so few, by the way. Isn't it

true that the SNP are scared to come out here right now and say they want

to get wood of the monarchy. Everybody knows it, but you will not

say it. -- get rid of the monarchy. I colleagues who are very keen

monarchists in the party, some who are indifferent, and some who are

Republicans. We are a party with a range of views. I am telling you the

facts. If you believe in an educated population, it was suggested that as

a head of state you could appoint someone at random. What about that?

It solves everybody's problem? not a fact that there was only one

referendum we are talking about tonight, which is a referendum in or

out of Europe? That is the referendum you are after! Isn't

there a question on the tangible benefit of running referendum rims

-- referendums? What ticket would head of state stand on, being

nonpolitical and so forth? Convince? What ticket would ahead of state

stand on? What is his or her ticket? Went Mary Robinson stood in Ireland,

she said supported by a coalition of forces. She stood firm on the right

-- modernising the Republic of Ireland. If we did have that kind of

contest in Scotland, that is the kind of candidate we would get.

if there was a yes vote in the independence referendum on, your

view is that we should have a vote on the monarchy? Yes, but I would be

interested in Christine's view. If the constitution was going to be put

to a vote, then to some extent, that would function as a sort of

referendum on whether or not the Scottish people would want on it as

a head of state. I think there would need to be some thinking through on

how it would deal with that. First of all, a referendum on the

constitution and another referendum on aspects of that... A lot of

referendums. Said to say that you disagree with your party leader on

this issue. -- fair to say. I would like a referendum on the monarchy,

and it doesn't have to be post-yes. It could be post no. And is the

range of opinion as varied in the SNP as Christine says? I would guess

so. I don't know, because of the different traditions of the parties.

The Republican position may be stronger in the Labour movement.

this point, in a global context over time, the monarchy is becoming more

or less popular? I would think this monarchy is becoming more popular.

There are some signs that it remains so, compared to some decades ago. I

am extremely worried about this. My historical head is just spinning. We

are going to have a referendum for all sort of things. We might have a

referendum if there is a yes vote for independence, or if there is a

no vote. There are such huge things to be thought out. The whole

question of the monarchy... I would like the monarchy to give us their

view, because its position is going to be intolerably difficult. Whether

the people want on one or not, something has got to be done to sort

out what is the head of state in a kingdom, for the sake of argument,

cut off and independent of England? -- whether the people want a monarch

or not. But this is not just Britain... Globally?Couple of

points. I start from the perspective that it is the will of the Scottish

people to have a monarch. Dennis can a man says he -- Dennis Caliban says

he favours... It is a distraction from the very profound decision that

the people of Scotland have got to make. It is regrettable. It is all

very well for him to say it is a personal expression of his own view,

but he is the chairman of the Yes campaign. Can I touch on one other

point? There was a gentleman asked what ticket they would stand on? I

sit in a Scottish parliament that was supposed to be nonparty

political. It was supposed to bring in all the talents of the Scottish

people, such as business people, with no political affiliation. Our

system is geared towards party politics. The attraction of the

monarchy is it is above that. If there was a vote for a head of

state, Labour would have a candidate and the SNP would have a candidate.

Would Jackson Carlaw not have the ticket as well? It would be tribal

politics. Somebody who is pro-independence and promonarchy, do

you think having the chairman of the Yes Campaign throw in the idea of a

referendum on the monarchy is helpful or not? Well, he is an

admirable man and his political judgement is disastrous and that's

another example. With Jackson, if Britain had been a republic all

these years then it is highly likely that at certain points Margaret

Thatcher would have been president of the republic. At a later stage

Tony Blair would have been president of the republic. If you think of the

horror of having either these figures as heads of state compared

with the Queen. Who are we going to be loyal to? Half the population

would be disloyal to Tony Blair and to Margaret Thatcher. Whereas the

entire population apart from a small republican minority can be loyal to

the Queen. Thank you very much indeed. Another

question. Next one comes from Jim Watson. Jim. In the past week my

family has extended itself further. My nephew has got a beautiful baby

boy and my niece also delivered a beautiful boy as well. But none of

these made the media or got any coverage at all curiously enough.

Does the panel think the coverage given to the recent addition to the

Royal Family was fair and balanced? Or was it indicative of an inherent

bias been within the BBC for all things royal? Michael? It is always

nice to see a lovely baby all sweet and cuddly. And I think any British

baby born or indeed, Scottish baby born in the last week who was as

beautiful as this one is would equally attract the admiration of

the public, but I mean the fact is that this boy, it is not the baby's

fault that everyone and he doesn't even know, but this boy will one day

be King, the boy who was born to be King and so for that, the head of

this state. For that reason, he is at least interesting. OK. You

thought the coverage was fair and balanced? I mean, how can you expect

-- stop it? It is nice we have a celebrity who doesn't care what the

media are saying about him. Christine? Someone said this is the

people's pregnancy. I have had my two. It was over the top. And

actually, as somebody who doesn't support having a Royal Family, it

was, I think, it was over the top and did them a disservice because if

anything it helped the republican movement because it was just too

much. And whereas papers follow the editorial line I think that the BBC,

I say this sitting at the BBC have a duty to broadcast for the nation at

large and it didn't do that and it gave acres and acres over when

nothing was happening. In fact, at one point, Nicholas Witchell even

said that the BBC has a public service duty that others don't have

and what we in fact was Nicholas Witchell getting his words mangled

and saying she is in the early stages of pregnancy. I couldn't get

away from it. I have seen Miss Marple and then I would switch back

to watch the evening news and it was wall to wall of nothing happening!

Let's get views from our audience. Do you think there is a balance to

be struck between the economic benefit we can get from a Royal

Family and respecting the rights of this poor child who whats come into

the world and doesn't know any better and is the subject of every

front page? Is that the media's fault or the family's fault? Very

much the media. It is only to be expected that there

is going to be so much media attention around the royal birth.

The media wouldn't be covering things that are not of interest to

the public and the Queen and the Royal Family have given a an amazing

service to the people of Scotland over the past 60 years it is

inevitable there will be massive public interest in it.

I agree with the gentleman there. It is inevitable. I think if you look

back at the celebrations last year surrounding the Queen and

everything... The jubilee?Yeah, everyone was really excited by that

and fundamentally for me, it took some of the media attention away

from England throwns thrownsing Australia in the Ashes. .

Vince Mills? The front page I liked best was the Private Eye which was"

woman has baby. " I almost got to the fact of feeling sorry for the

BBC reporters on news 24 who were parked outside the hospital. There

was a lot of airtime that seemed to be required to be filled! I don't

see how anybody could j you have that no matter what position they

take in the monarchy. I am a monarchist, a supporter of

the monarchy. I was surprised by the extent of the coverage myself, but I

think it is unfair to talk about the BBC. All the major American networks

were there. All the major television stations from every country in the

world were there. They weren't serving anything other than an

interest in their own country and an appetite for stories about the Royal

Family. It did get overwhelming the coverage. The ex-at any time to it,

I remember when Leo Blair was born, we had lots of coverage of Leo on

the steps of Number Ten with his parents. The newspaper is full from

week to week of the babies of film stars and celebrities so there is a

general appetite in this particular instance for people it is a unique

circumstance. There is no other nation on earth that can look a

century forward and see a continuity of its history reaching in that

direction in the same way that they can look back and for many people

that's just a comforting thought. it OK for the royals to be part of

the clebity culture? Partly the connection here was that for people

in Britain they were looking so far into the future and I think you know

the interesting thing is even republicans according to a poll at

the weekend don't see much prospect of a republic this century and

that's a feeling that's shared amongst all generation. The

remarkable thing is the number of younger people who are comfortable

of looking forward to the idea of a monarchy.

It time is against us. Neil Grant is our next question. We live in a

multi-religious and nonreligious society. Is it appropriate that the

monarch is the head of the Church of England? Is it appropriate that the

monarch is the head of the Church of England? Jackson? Well, I'm an

atheist, Glen. The religious connotation is not something that

troubles me. The element of discrimination is something I prefer

not to see. Prince Charles talked about being the Defender of the

Faiths. That would be better?I'm conscious that those people who wish

to seek to try and change this, the legislative implications of so doing

are so exhaustive in terms of the way it would have to filter through

so much of the legislation that exists, that we could tie our

inefficiency up in knots doing it. I don't think it is an ideal position.

But it is the one that is there. And I think from my point of view, it is

all relatively benign. But haven't they in short order, in

consultation of the countries of the Commonwealth managed to change the

nature of succession to allow first-born females? Getting that

agreement across all the nations of the Commonwealth actually was

problematic. It wasn't... It was swiftly done? It took time. I think

the actual implication in relation to the broader unravelling of the

monarchy in terms of the institutions within the United

Kingdom is a much more fundamental change and I just wonder whether

that's something we want to preoccupy ourselves doing. Prince

Charles talked about having a broader role as defender of faiths.

That would be better? In a multi-racial country we want

everybody in the country to feel that loyalty and that same affection

for the monarchy. Vince Mills? They have to take out

the bit that does not allow the monarch to be a Catholic either. And

I think in a sense that shows you what old institution it is.

Are you happy with the monarch being the head of England?

Who does not have religious affiliations as job of the job

specification. Jenny Wormald Can I bring you in?

Well, the context here is that the monarchy in fact the people of

England and Scotland have remarkably worked this one out very well.

Whether the monarch as far as the Scots are concerned is head of the

Church of England, has nothing whatsoever to do with us. In the

17th century, people went to war over religion, over trying to impose

religion on the three kingdoms. Today, the Queen is a religious

schizophrenic. She is head of the Church of England. She is an

ordinary member of the church in Scotland. She is happy with that and

it works. There are plenty of problems about the monarch as head

of the Church of England now which are showing up more and more and

that will have to be discussed. But I would have thought that Scotland

has got plenty to think about without getting embroiled in

something that's not its business. The lady on the aisle there. How can

a monarch who is a defender of one faith be a member of another church?

That's surely wrong. You think that seems strange. It is not a question

that's asked today. It is not for, I cannot explain why. It seems much

more logical that any one person should have one faith, but if has

emerged in a way that it is imposed on the monarch that that is the

situation that we don't expect her to try and Angela Anglocise.

She can't be both. Well, she is. It is not right. If you are the head

of a church that you are given that right by God so to speak, you can't

be surely be a member of a different church. She has given the position

as head of the Church of England by Act of Parliament. I don't know what

God thought of the matter when Henry VIII set this up.

You think it is wrong and should be changed? Yeah.Thank you very much

indeed for making that point. The gentleman there. I guess from

the point of view what religion is now, it doesn't matter what the

Queen or monarch follows what their religious opinion is or whether they

have an atheist. There is a problem if you have a leader of a religion

and the head of state wearing two hats at the same time. You have

issues when it comes to discrimination, it is not something

that makes them truth worthy. There is a massive problem when you have

one person trying to wear two hats at the same time. OK, thank you very

much indeed for that and the gentleman on this side. If if you

are a member of the Church of England and the head of the church

as the Queen. The Queen is also a member of the Church of Scotland. So

one faith, one God. It the doesn't matter.

OK. Thank you very much indeed. Let's go back to our pam. Michael

Fry -- our panel, Michael Fry, the question was about the monarch's

role as head of the Church of England and whether that was

appropriate? Well, as Jenny said, it is really a historical problem, but

you know, we have to the start from where we are. The Queen is head of

the Church of England by Act of Parliament and in order to change

that, she would have to disestablish the Church of England. Now, I think

the Queen who is a devout Christian is happy being head of the Church of

England. I think the Church of England as far as ikedz the Church

of England is happy to have the Queen -- I can see, the Church of

England is happy to have the Queen as its head. I Is think it would be

an awful thing if At yesz -- atheists and other people who are

not conformist to this arrangement should step in and say "this should

not happen. You are forbidden to be head of the Church of England and

you are forbidden to have the monarch as you have for the last 500

years almost. " As long as in arrangement doesn't hurt anybody

else it should just carry on. Christine Grahame? I am an atheist

like Jackson and I am frightened to say something about history. Henry

VIII made himself head of the church so he could get rid of the Catholic

Church to marry ap anne Berlin. We have got things continuing from way

back to Henry VIII. However, it is for me it is not an issue. For

England, if they want to continue the rest of the UK with the Queen,

as head of the church in England so be it. But you have made an

interesting point about how these two issues can settle together. How

the head of the Church of England can be an ordinary member of the

church of Scotland. There is an issue there. It is one of these

constitutional matters that's just been swept under the carpet, but it

is a matter for England. Alan, where are you? Go ahead.

accept Denis's proposal for an elected head of state, whose names

other than the Queen's would the panel like to see on the ballot

paper? That's in the event of independence having a referendum and

looking to an elected head of state. If it got to that, who should be on

the ballot paper? Jackson? think... You have nominated

yourself. I would like to see the person that the country would most

like to see getting comprehensively wal oped and that would be Alex

Salmond! Christine Grahame?That's nasty of you Jackson. I was just

beginning to agree with you about things. I want a woman. I'm the only

woman here and there is so few women there and yourself, but we can count

on one hand so I'm going for Annie Lennox because she is a

humanitarian. She is a sensible kind person. She is not affiliated to

political parties and she has a wonderful voice.

I would tell you who I would like is the Michael Marra. He says" you can

bow down to the Prince of Wales and me I'm going to get... " I am a

Jacobite at heart. I look to the present Jacobite claimants to the

throne of this kingdom of other kingdoms. Sophie von Liechtenstein.

Do you have a tip? I was told not to be controversial!

Jenny, thank you very much indeed. Thanks to our panel.