Get involved. Read it, debate it, think about it.
It’s there on the Scottish government website.
Sovereignty can be ours again.
On the point of the Queen as head of state, I’m not bothered. I’ve never thought that removing the royals was an important thing.
The Nordic model that many aspire to, has kings as heads of state, except Finland. The Netherlands does and that’s a generally progressive and tolerant country.
I don’t see the issue. It’s a limited monarchy, as Queen of Scots rather than Queen of Scotland, Elizabeth’s powers are limited. The definition is a subtle difference but worth looking up.
Scotland entered the union as a Kingdom and, it makes sense that it exits the same way.
Keep a republic for a post Indy referendum on the constitution.
I’d rather concentrate on equality, real social justice, caring for our young and elderly and re growing our economic base and reconnecting our towns and cities.
The monarchy is our connection to the rest of Britain, it’s a culture shared with Canada and Australia where our emigre communities are and if the woman can talk to Martin McGuinness and be lauded on a visit to Paris, can it all be bad, especially if post Indy out contribution is a few weeks of looking after her in the summer.
Remember too that a couple of generations of Scots will effectively be dual UK and Scottish citizens if we go the Indy route. We don’t lose UK passports as pretty much majority of us born in UK and our children are too. It would be a spiteful Westminster to strip UK status from all Scots and something never done to the Irish.
Maybe it throws a bone to the ‘unionists’ that believe loyalty to the crown matters or those of a certain football or marching orders.
Maybe it reflects the reality of Scots views. The Queen, then William and Kate please.
Maybe it’s good for tourism or heritage or whatever.
Yes the monarchy would be a connection to the rest of Britain, but post Indy aren’t we better to make and keep friends?
Let’s get our independence first though.