Scottish Greens call to abolish monarchy ahead of Edinburgh protest
The Republic Day demonstration, organised by anti-monarchy campaign group Our Republic, will take place on Saturday at Calton Hill between 2pm and 4pm.
Speakers at the event include National columnist Lesley Riddoch, poet George Gunn, SNP MSP Emma Roddick, Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman and Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie.
Anti-monarchy campaigners protest ceremony for King and Queen on Edinburgh's Royal Mile, July 2024 (Image: Republic) Ahead of the event, Harvie said it was becoming 'increasingly unjustifiable' to maintain the monarchy in Scotland, adding that the 'outdated' institution was 'at odds' with the concerns of ordinary people.
Harvie said that while people were experiencing widespread inequality through the cost of living crisis and the UK Government's cuts to disability benefits and the Winter Fuel Payment, the royal family has 'never had it so good'.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes: This is why I will vote against assisted dying in Scotland
The Scottish Greens co-leader added that Scotland has the potential to be an 'modern independent democratic republic', and that the powers of independence would help to tackle such inequality in society.
(Image: PA) Commenting, Harvie (above) said: 'There is no place in modern Scotland for the monarchy.
'Our society is experiencing widespread inequality, with the cost of living crisis continuing to push many to the brink. However, it seems the royal family has never had it so good.
'The taxpayer-funded sovereign grant rises year on year. They don't pay capital gains tax, they don't pay corporation tax and they're exempt from stamp duty. They have received millions of pounds of income in rent from the NHS, schools and the armed forces for operating on the vast swathes of land that they own.
'It is completely at odds with the struggles faced by some of our most vulnerable communities. We should not have a system that only benefits the super-rich, while leaving the rest of us to pick up the bill.
READ MORE: David Lammy 'must explain if he misled us on Israel arms exports', MPs say
'The monarchy is a profoundly outdated and undemocratic institution. We must have a serious conversation about the country we see ourselves as.
'The idea that we should show this preference for one unaccountable family, who take far more from society than they give, is the exact opposite image of Scotland I would like to see. I believe we can do so much better for the people living in our country.
'Scotland has the potential to be a modern independent democratic republic. It can be a greener and fairer country that redistributes the wealth hoarded by monarchy and the rest of the super-rich, and uses it to the benefit of the many people who are struggling.
'Ultimately, it should be the people of Scotland who are sovereign and I will continue to make the case that with the powers of independence we can tackle the profound inequality that is highlighted by the lifestyle that the royals enjoy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
10 hours ago
- Sky News
The five considerable problems with the chancellor's U-turn on winter fuel payments
There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all? First, Rachel Reeves has executed the plan without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound that opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to. Politics latest: Treasury minister challenged over reason for U-turn Second, the fig leaf that she and Treasury ministers are using is an improvement in economic conditions. If you were being polite, you'd say this is contested. The OBR halved growth this year and the OECD downgraded UK forecasts, albeit only by a little, last week. The claim that interest rates are coming down ignores that their descent is slower because of government decisions of the last six months. Third, the question immediately becomes, what next? Why not personal independent payments (PIP) and the two-child benefit cap? At this stage, it would feel like a climbdown if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it, and could they punish the government? Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the Parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are worried. 👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Fifth, this has created a firm division between No 10 (the PM) and No 11 (the Chancellor). No 10 is now conscious that it does not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first. Read more:UK to become 'AI maker not taker', says PMHow much cash will Reeves give each department? Given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened? Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioners' anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying, whatever the fiscal cost. We wait to see who is right.
Sky News
11 hours ago
- Sky News
The five key issues from chancellor's winter fuel payment U-turn
There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all? First, Rachel Reeves has executed the plan without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound that opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to. Second, the fig leaf that she and Treasury ministers are using is an improvement in economic conditions. If you were being polite, you'd say this is contested. The OBR halved growth this year and the OECD downgraded UK forecasts, albeit only by a little, last week. The claim that interest rates are coming down ignores that their descent is slower because of government decisions of the last six months. Third, the question immediately becomes, what next? Why not personal independent payments (PIP) and the two-child benefit cap? At this stage, it would feel like a climbdown if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it, and could they punish the government? 1:46 Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the Parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are worried. Fifth, this has created a firm division between No 10 (the PM) and No 11 (the Chancellor). No 10 is now conscious that it does not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first. Given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened? Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioners' anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying, whatever the fiscal cost.
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves may have U-turned on winter fuel, but her problems are far from over
Standing in what appeared to be a garden centre to announce her latest U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel payment, Rachel Reeves looked as if she was wilting a bit. Never at ease in front of a camera, the chancellor was more stilted than usual and didn't make much of an attempt to justify the change on any rational grounds. If this 'difficult decision' was the right thing to do last year, when the public finances were under pressure, one might ask: why is it the wrong thing to do this year, when the public finances are still under pressure, albeit for different reasons? She cannot, for reasons of pride, admit the U-turn is because of the recent electoral punishment-beating administered by an angry public – with the added force of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage both declaring they'd restore the payment in full and immediately. She certainly cannot concede that this totem of her 'iron determination' to do whatever it took to achieve sustainable public finances has had to be tossed away, against her wishes, because the prime minister publicly ordered her to do so and her backbenchers increasingly demanded this hated policy be ditched. But she knows that everyone knows the truth – and to her credit, she cannot disguise her discomfort. She is in the worst of all worlds: she looks callous (even if she is not) but now she also looks weak, and will get few thanks for giving the winter fuel payment back (mostly). This is not a dream combination of attributes for a senior Labour figure or, for that matter, for a finance minister hoping to dazzle the markets. In fact, even in executing this U-turn she has somehow managed to botch things, by trying to retain some element of the means-testing she introduced last year, just to save face. So, even now, not all pensioners will receive their £200 or £300 (depending on age). Or rather, all will receive it initially, but some, not fantastically rich on an income of £35,000 or more, will find it entirely clawed back by HM Revenue and Customs through the self-assessment procedure. It would have been easier all round just to complete the U-turn: instead, Ms Reeves has stopped around the 170-degree mark. It hardly seems worth it. Even when it was first announced at the end of July last year, means-testing the WFP was an ill-conceived move. Of all the options available to her – and all chancellors, even in the tightest of binds, have choices – she plumped for the one that combined an incredibly modest saving (about £1.5bn) with the maximum political damage. Some 10 million active and motivated pensioners were ready to head to the nearest polling station at the earliest opportunity to make their displeasure clear. Too late, Ms Reeves and Liz Kendall pointed out how relatively generous the triple lock on the state pension was. Yet they didn't attempt to point out what a functioning NHS might do for the quality of life of older people. There was never so much as the faintest hint that an incoming Labour government would scrap something introduced by Gordon Brown and retained by the Conservatives since 2010. Making the U-turn announcement now, two days ahead of the comprehensive spending review was, presumably, an attempt to manage the news cycle – getting the good-but-embarrassing news out of the way. That might be shrewd, if the review does indeed show how the public services will 'live within their means' in the coming years, with welcome extra resources for the NHS, schools and the defence of the realm, restoring Ms Reeves's prestige. Yet the authority of the chancellor has been badly compromised by the missteps she's taken in her first year in office – unforced errors compounded by poor presentation. The so-called 'tractor tax' and an over-reliance on employers' national insurance contributions have also landed badly. As some old Treasury hands suggest, it feels very much as though her civil servants reached for their favourite policies when the inexperienced chancellor asked about options, and she accepted the recommendations all too readily, in a way her predecessors did not. Maybe the very real 'black hole' she inherited panicked her. It looks like it. At any rate, she is finding it even more difficult to resist her more powerful colleagues in the spending departments when they push for politically expedient solutions. We need not exaggerate matters, though. Ms Reeves is not like Kwasi Kwarteng being recalled from an IMF summit to be sacked by Liz Truss for delivering (her) mini-Budget in 2022. Nor is this a repeat of a dazed Norman Lamont staggering into Whitehall to announce that sterling was leaving the European ERM in 1992. Unlike in those episodes, the government's economic policy has not been destroyed by an adjustment of about £1bn in a social security budget of more than £300bn. But she knows that she is in a weakened position – and, with no following in the party, depends heavily on the confidence of the prime minister to survive. Sir Keir Starmer knows, as she does, that if he were to move her this early in the life of the government it would only make matters worse in every respect. For now, they're still in this together.
