Alistair McConnachie published Sovereignty from July 1999 to its 120th consecutive monthly issue in June 2009, and he continues to maintain this website. Alistair McConnachie also publishes Prosperity - Freedom from Debt Slavery which educates about the nature of our debt-based money system and A Force For Good which advocates the maintenance of the United Kingdom. To find out more go to the about who is Alistair McConnachie page. You can buy the Complete 10-Year, 120 Back Issue Set of Sovereignty - worth £162.50 - for only £89 inc p+p, a 45% discount. Cheques payable to Sovereignty, at 268 Bath St, Glasgow, G2 4JR or go here and click "Buy Now".

On Wednesday 14 November 2001, Alistair McConnachie led the opposition at St. Andrews University Debating Society against the motion "This House Would Abolish the Monarchy".

Putting the case for the abolition was Joan Burnie, Deputy Editor of The Daily Record, and a University student.

The following are some of the notes made by Alistair McConnachie before the event. This article appeared in the December 2001 issue of Sovereignty.

AN IDEAL HEAD OF STATE
So long as we believe in nation states and so long as we need governing systems to govern nation states, then we will continue to need Heads of State: people who can represent the nation to itself and to the world. A Head of State can provide a personal identity to an impersonal State, and a collective sense of itself.

A Head of State who does not owe his or her position to either patronage or a vote can more properly represent all the people.

Consider that a President who has been elected, often by a minority of a minority of the electorate, cannot adequately speak for the people who did not vote for him or her.

It is even worse if the President has been appointed, because then he owes his position to a small clique.

So, the accident of birth is the best means of appointing a Head of State. Someone who has no party political axe to grind, or special favours to repay to a vested interest.

Someone whose allegiance is to the people. Not just allegiance to the people who voted for him or his political party, but allegiance to all the people of the country equally.

Far from being "incompatible" with democracy, a Monarchy can thereby enhance the government of the land.

A DISTINCT SYMBOL OF NATIONAL IDENTITY
The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad.

When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she took the throne, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. Someone who embodies in her very being a history which extends back through time, back through the Victorian era, back into the Stuart era and beyond. You see the national history of all parts of our islands, together, going right back in time.

A living continuity between the past, the present and the future.

That's something that no politician can provide. When we look at Tony Blair, for example -- whatever you may think of him -- we see nothing meaningful on a national scale, pre-1997.

All politicians come and go, but Monarchy is forever.

With its traditions, its history, its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.

If you value national distinctiveness, you should be a Monarchist.

If you are anti-globalist you should be a Monarchist because Monarchies represent the different national traditions and distinctions among the nations.

The desire to secure, strengthen and promote your own distinct national icons, whether your Monarch, or your own unique national identity, should be your concern, whether you live here in St Andrews, or whether you live in St Petersburg, or whether you live in St Paulo.

As the global financial system rushes us all towards a world intended to eradicate all local and national distinctions, the Monarchy stands out as different, distinct and valuable.

Constitutionally, practically, spiritually and symbolically this nation would be impoverished without Monarchy.

OBJECTIONS
"The Monarchy Sustains Class Injustice"
This is just rhetorical hum-bug. If you want egalitarianism then look at Norway and the Netherlands - both highly "egalitarian" societies, and both monarchies.

If you want oppression and class injustice then look at the countries in South America, almost all of which are ... republics!

The Monarchy is a concept which can transcend class divisions in the sense that, in the eyes of the Monarch, all are equal before the Crown.

"It's a Costly Extravagance"
The annual cost of around £37 million is good value for money. In any case, Monarchy is meant to be majestic, yet there seems to be a deliberate move to diminish the majesty of the Monarchy.

The pageantry, the ceremonial are all part and parcel of Monarchy - not intended to glorify Mrs Windsor, per se, but intended to elevate the national icon. So long as the Monarch remains a symbol of the nation, then no expense should be spared. A nation which values itself will treat its national icons with prestige and respect.

"Look at the Behaviour of the Royals"
Don't confuse the personalities of the Royal Family with the concept of Monarchy itself. Personalities come and go but the principle remains.

"It Encourages People to Live in a Fantasy Land. They are a Diversion"
On the contrary, the Monarchy is real. It is television and the media which deliberately diverts people and encourages them to become obsessed with pop stars and soap operas, which are fantasy.

"Inherited Privilege has no Place in our Society"
A privilege is a special right. It is the privilege of the Monarch to reign. It is the privilege of the Monarch to serve.

If by "privilege" you mean the enjoyment of an advantage not bestowed upon others, then, you should judge the Monarch by how she uses that privilege.

"What does the Queen do?"
She reigns. That is her job. That is her purpose. That is her duty.

"The Royal Prerogative is Exploited by the PM"
Attacking the monarchy by claiming misuse of the Royal Prerogative, is a red herring. The "Royal" label of the Prerogative is a historical hangover. These powers today are exercised by the Prime Minister. There may be an argument for reforming his powers in this regard, but it is not connected with reforming the monarchy. Get rid of the monarchy and you would still have these residual powers vested in the Prime Minister, but they would instead be called the "Prime Minister's Prerogative".

"The Monarchy will Eventually be Abolished"
The truth is that Monarchy is forever.

Even if the Monarchy were officially "abolished", it only takes one person to say, "You are my King" and the Monarchy lives.

THE REPUBLICAN CASE FALLS DOWN
It argues on the superiority of democracy only, without realising that the Monarchy can be integrated into the democratic process.

Moreover, the republican case falls down on:
- Its failure to provide a consistent critique of the present system
- Its small minded, envious objections to petty things like the cost, or the ceremony. The fact is that the Monarchy provides extremely good value for money.
- It fails in its inability to explain the nature of the system which would replace the Monarchy.
- It fails in its lack of historical consciousness. Some of the worst bloodshed ever has been a result of the overthrowing of monarchies.