Should the Monarchy Stay or Go?

What are my views on the Queen? There are various people within the nationalist community who believe that an independent Scotland (or a united Britain) should be a republic. The argument goes that the common people should be able to elect their head of state, but this I see as quite pointless. For instance, let us just imagine that Britain became a republic. In the British system at present the Queen acts as our head of state, and so it must be concluded that any elected official would perform similar functions: real power would still reside with the Prime Minister and Parliament with the President used as a figure head with limited constitutional powers. We would have a republic which would almost definitely be closer to the Indian or Polish model rather than the American one, and as such we would be replacing a monarchical figure-head with an elected figure-head.

Now if we conclude that the only difference between a monarchical Britain and a republican one is another election every 4 years or so, then from a philosophical perspective it must be concluded that there must be something special about electing our head of state or there would be no point in replacing the Queen. I would argue that this is not true. Although democracy in the Lower House is preferable to some kind of dictatorship, I would argue that an elected President merely adds extra cost (elections cost money) and uncertainty (will it be the twit who is elected? Do I really need to watch another party political broadcast?) without adding to the sum total of national wellbeing (would another elected official really make me any better off either economically or spiritually?). As such I would argue that on grounds of good governance replacing the already existing monarch with a President is an unnecessary, and quite laborious step which should be avoided.

Of course republicans tend to factor in cost-cutting as a reason to axe the monarchy, but this simply does not float. Almost all of the Queen’s properties (with the exclusion of Buckingham Palace and a few others) are owned by her and her family-if Britain became a republic these properties would remain in the Windsor family. At the moment the government has the right to receive the money generated from these business interests, and with them meet the monarchies various costs. Any money left over goes into the government’s budget. With a President we would have most of the costs (security detail, wage, state functions and the added burden of an election) with none of the added benefits brought out from the Windsor estates-unless that family was extremely generous. The idea that a republic would save the country undue financial strain is therefore ludicrous. As such I conclude that Britain (and indeed an independent Scotland) should remain a monarchy for the foreseeable future.