A Guest Post by Allan Petrie.
In recent years, the conversation surrounding Scotland’s political future has become increasingly urgent. As we consider the principles of sovereignty and representation, it’s time to address a significant anachronism: the oath of allegiance to the monarch. This relic not only undermines the democratic fabric of Scotland but also sends a troubling message about the nature of authority and legitimacy in our society.
The Scottish Claim of Right
At the heart of the Scottish constitutional framework is the Claim of Right, which asserts that the people of Scotland are sovereign, not the Parliament or the monarchy. This foundational principle emerged from our historic struggle against arbitrary power and was reaffirmed in 1689 when the Estates of Scotland declared that sovereignty rests with the people. The Claim of Right effectively elevates the will of the Scottish people above any royal decree, making clear that our governance should reflect our collective aspirations rather than allegiance to a distant monarch.
In stark contrast, the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not required to take an oath of allegiance to the British crown. Instead, they swear an oath to represent the people of Northern Ireland, an arrangement that respects the democratic will of the constituents. This distinction raises serious questions about the legitimacy of requiring Scottish representatives to pledge allegiance to a monarch who is increasingly disconnected from the realities of Scottish life.
A Legacy of Violence and Injustice
The refusal to allow Scotland a referendum on independence, while simultaneously compelling its representatives to swear an oath to the monarchy, echoes the historic struggles in Northern Ireland. The troubles in Ireland were characterised by a deep-seated resentment against imposed authority and a desire for self-determination—principles that resonate strongly in Scotland today. For many, the oath to the monarch feels like an imposition, a relic of colonialism that stifles the voice of the Scottish people and perpetuates a sense of disenfranchisement.
Moreover, the existence of the oath in Scotland alongside the more progressive practices in Northern Ireland sends a disheartening message: that political violence and conflict may yield greater rights than peaceful, democratic protest. The stark contrast between Scotland’s forced allegiance and Northern Ireland’s recognition of the people’s right to self-determination undermines the legitimacy of our democratic processes. It implies that historic violence, rather than collective will, is the path to gaining rights and representation.
The Democratic Disconnect
Currently, Scotland is faced with an unsettling scenario: while our representatives are bound to an oath of loyalty to the crown, we are denied a referendum to determine our own future. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, there exists a legal provision for a vote on reunification every seven years. This disparity not only highlights the inequities in the governance of the UK but also reinforces the notion that Scotland’s pursuit of self-determination is seen as a threat rather than a democratic right.
This situation sends a confusing and damaging message to the Scottish public. It suggests that our peaceful aspirations for independence and self-governance are subordinate to an outdated fealty to a monarchy, while those who have historically engaged in conflict are afforded more rights and recognition. This dichotomy is not only unjust; it risks alienating citizens from the political process altogether.
Moving Forward: A Call for Change
It is time for Scotland to reaffirm its commitment to democracy by abolishing the oath to the monarch. By doing so, we would not only align our practices with the principles of the Claim of Right but also send a clear message about the importance of the people’s sovereignty. The Scottish Parliament should represent the voice of the people, free from the constraints of royal allegiance.
As we continue to strive for a fairer, more representative political system, it is crucial that we learn from the lessons of history. Let us not allow past conflicts to dictate our present. Instead, let us foster a culture of democracy, inclusivity, and self-determination. Ending the oath to the monarch is a vital step in that direction—a commitment to the people of Scotland and their right to chart their own course. The time for change is now.
I agree in general with this proposition that our elected representatives should not be required to swear an oath of allegiance to any King or Queen of England, who is not legally King or Queen if Scots since he/she has not sworn the Scottish Coronation oath to uphold the rights and welfare of the People of Scotland. The last to do this was Queen Anne. Sincere thanks to Alan for pointing out this anomaly between Scotlznd and Northern Ireland.
I think this would be a great way of beginning to re-establish our very different constitution from that wrongly imposed on us by London.
However we must not forget the Scottish Coronation oath which gives monarchs in Scotland their legitimacy, so that should be an important part of the process of telling Westminster that, in future, our representatives will not swear allegiance to a foreign monarch. Many of our MPs and MSPs over the years have objected to this practice so I would hope that a majority if them would be happy not to have to do this.
We must also remember that the Scottidh Crown is very different in concept from the English Crown and has been since 1603 when James VI of Scotland became Jane’s I of Englsnd. Effectively from than on, he wore two crowns and that was certainly recognised by him as he madevut ckearcthst he preferred the Engkish concept of the Divine Right of Kings which gave him more powers while removing the constraints imposed by the concept if the Scottish Crown which made him subject to the consent if the people, something his son, James VII was to find out when he was denied by the Scots in 1689 fitctryingbto impose the Catholic religion on the people of Scotland against thir express will. The Claim of Right of the same year re-established the right of the Scottish people to give consent to their monarch and the ancient Sovereignty of the People of Scotland as set out in the Declaration of Arbroath. Meanwhile the English Bill of Right established the idea of a Cobsitutional Monarchy, subject to the elected Parliament, which became the concept of the supremacy of the King in Parliament, which is still the basis of the?English Consitution.
Unfortunately on 1707 Union of the Parliaments, the different Scottish traditions were wrongly ignored by London, though never legally repealed, and the English system was adopted for the new country of Great Britain.
I fully agree with Alan that it is well time to begin to assert our distinction from England and cease to swear allegiance to the English monarch as a step on the way to re-asserting our Independence.
A final thought, I think it could be even mire important for the Civil Servants whe advise our Scottish government also not to be required to swear allegiance to the King. What is the situation in Northetn Ireland regarding this?
The Oath of Allegiance is only one aspect of today’s governance designed to keep the people at the bottom of all scales and those who believe they are entitled to rule over us at the top.
The question that I ask is ‘why have the people allowed this charade to go on for so long?’ It is not only our MPs and MSPs that take this farcical oath to a foreign ruler but also the KCs and hundreds of so-called Privy Councillors. Those who took the Privy Councillor Oath include John Swinney, Stephen Flynn, Humza Yousaf, Ian Blackford, Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond and many many others who enjoy the egotistical title of being a Rt. Hon.
The Privy Councillor Oath includes the final paragraph – “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the King’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to His Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against
all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to His Majesty SO HELP YOU GOD”
So, all of the above-named Privy Councillors have not only grovelled at the feet of foreign royalty but also sworn to “…assist and defend all civil and temporal jurisdictions, pre-eminencies and authorities….”. That clearly means that those named have agreed to ‘assist and defend’ the king’s Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments, so how is that at all compatible with being the Leader of a political party supposedly intent on getting rid of Westminster and its administration in Scotland?
Good article, though we might doubt that Scotland’s colonial institutions and elites have any desire to change their allegiance from the present foreign crown.
Another important difference between Scotland and N.Ireland is that the Belfast treaty states that the franchise on self-determination in N.Ireland is limited to only ‘those born in N.Ireland’, whereas the Scotland Act imposes a local government franchise in Scotland for national elections and referendums.
Why not suggest swearing allegiance to the Scottish Crown, where the latter is the Scottish people as defined in the Scottish Constitution and Claim of Right?
The North of Ireland has many powerful friends in the world, while we have many powerful enemies, most of them within the Scottish establishment, it would seem. Having a national bourgeoisie that looks to London has been one of our nation’s many problems historically, it being a prerequisite for any successful colonisation.
I would also suggest that the UK establishment have more fear of the armalite than the democratic weapons of choice
That, as history plainly shows, is undoubtedly the case, Roddy.