JCC Scottish Independence Referendum Thread

Contrary to popular belief, the British monarchy still theoretically has a lot of constitutional power that could be abused in the "wrong" hands. Elizabeth Windsor just chooses not to do so. Whether such a monarch (my guess is baby George) would be successful is another question, but still.

 

Ender: What an incredibly lame answer. The points you raise have nothing to do with what I said. I have never implied there aren't reasons people like the monarchy. I simply think they are, collectively, less compelling than the harmful aspects of the institution. Are you about to embark on a defense of inequality as a positive good?

Jello: Your answer is equally disingenuous. Why should we only focus on "legal" equality? Especially when I said at the outset that my concerns were about the rhetorical implications of the institution?

Secondly, who said anything about "over-riding" anyone's will? I understand that some people like monarchy. I think they are wrong, and try to persuade them of my viewpoint by outlining the problems I have with it. What are you on about?

 

It's not just the British psyche, though, Ramza. Go to Google Images and type "Nederland koningsdag volk". What you tend to see is images of seas of orange, like this:



Oranje being the royal colours (House of Oranje-Nassau) of the Dutch royal family (and of Holland, more broadly)

Look then at images of this, or of the Queen's birthday or jubilee. Britain was saturated in Union flags at the time; Dutch cities are full of oranje clothing...

The monarchy is a intrinsic part of national identity and, with politics producing less admirable people over the generations, it's seen as a symbol of something great and noble about the state. When your government shut down because the Republicans are cartoonishly evil and stupid, articles pointed to the Australian double dissolution of 1975 and how the monarchy was allowed to sack a government if it couldn't find consensus. Whilst an oversimplification it nevertheless highlighted this idea that the monarchy is an institution that serves the people and it not limited by partisan concerns.

It's similar, though on a much smaller scale, to how effective, good and noble the House of Lords is.

 

Sigh.

Allow me to rephrase my earlier question: Is anyone going to address my concern that monarchy buttresses a rhetorical notion of intrinsic inequality as normative?

Telling me how much people like their respective monarchs isn't a response to that question.

 

And, in simple terms, the US does not have anything remotely comparable to this. Your highest office is partisan and variable as an ambassador for the country.

 

No, no, I'm not trying to convince you that monarchy is secretly insidious, I was just admiring the way with which it results in a restructuring of ethics to self-perpetuate its own power structure, leading to arguments about how institutions tied to it, such as the House of Lords, are not merely effective but are, in fact, "good and noble." It gives its proponents a nice way to counter antimonarchist discourse and, indeed, would probably have the added bonus of often preventing such discourse from arising in the first place.

Any system of government inevitably does this, so it's not really "evil" and contending such is not my point.

 

But Jello did this. All you're doing is lazily assuming equality exists and the historical advent of the blue blood class, with one group being dominant of all blue and red bloods, as being some sort of unnatural outcome. It's not; the same process exists today, but the measurements for such status are no longer birth, land and title but assets, earnings, and prestige.

Also, your country has indefensible levels of inequality relative to a number of monarchies. I'm not sure that your concern can't be dismissed as "quaintly esoteric". Are the monarchs my betters? Absolutely.

EDIT: Iello, yes. Typo; should have read "was".

 

Uhh, Jello this discussion started when I gave a brief outline of my objections. I've neither subsequently edited them out nor retracted them. You're free to respond at any point.

Ender: Look to the difference between this and the other things you listed. You are, in general, invoking specific rationales for judging people better or worse: wealth, popularity, current income, level of education, et cetera. I can and do find any number of those stupid, but they are at least reasons. The superiority of monarchs is comparatively untethered to anything. They are better because they exist. This isn't something we otherwise see much of in the present day. It does, though, fit very nicely with the mode of thought that arbitrarily held one gender to be better than another, or one ethnicity superior to another, regardless of how any particular individual actually thought or believed or acted or succeeded or failed in their life. It is the arbitrary nature of the superiority that makes it so pernicious.

 

Well in that case, he has. Your arguments are based on an historic objection and do not reflect the modern state of affairs. You need to do better.

 

Incorrect, as should now be clear after my edit. See above.

 

Jello, saying it's a public office doesn't get at much. Why is it a public office in the first place, and more particularly why is it heritable? That there's legal acknowledgment of the public deference towards one family doesn't provide a rationale for that deference. It simply codifies it. Likewise, talking about popular support for the institution doesn't get at its rationale. What is it?

 

Here is where I'd sharply disagree with you. There is, as you've referenced, a religious rationale that supports the status of the Emperor. They hold that one family has a divine ancestry that others do not, and that this ancestry affords them special importance in the history and present day affairs of Japan. I don't follow this religion, but insofar as many Japanese do, that's perfectly fine. As I told Ender about other forms of creating hierarchy, whether I agree or disagree, I can readily acknowledge it is in fact a rationale of some sort.

Contrast that with British monarchs. I understand how the institution has evolved. We all grasp that it is legal. But why is such status afforded to the particular family that it is? Why to any one single family above all others at all? What are the implications of saying, legally and culturally, that a few specific individuals are deserving of these things that no one else is, for no reason at all? Alternatively, what present day explanation is there? It strikes me as reflexive, which is also supported by the fact that you all have yet to articulate any rationale for this. Some of it is attributable to confusion over the nature of my argument, but I think it really ought to be clear by now. Is there some compelling reason I've overlooked? Any reason at all?

 

Wocky, the reason the system exists is because way back when, the strong rose to the top and dominated the weak. That's pretty much history in general, not just blue bloods specifically. It's always existed that way, and will continue to. A rich American dynasty like your Kennedys is basically the same entity as a powerful feudal lord of 1200AD, transplanted to modern times. They were the best, they set the rules, and they could maintain that system even if there were weak, corrupt, stupid or ineffectual people in the bloodlines.

Nowadays, they are what they are but what they are is a source of national pride and unity. And overwhelmingly people love and support them. I'm not sure your objection other than comparing you to Homer Simpson and monarchists to Ned FLanders.

 

Yes, given that Khomeini wrote several whole books outlining his theory of governance, I would say its rationale is better articulated than that of the present British monarchy. That's not an endorsement of the guy's views (nor of any other faith-based tradition) but simply an acknowledgment that they have made an argument.

The "heritage" argument also doesn't work very well. That supports the idea of having a monarch, true. But as you point out, that general idea has evolved substantially over the years. Why not further? What's to stop assignment of a monarch by random lottery, for instance? How does the idea of heritage support the deference towards one particular family, when royal lines shifted quite readily in years bygone, and you aren't accepting of any of the criteria by which they used to change?

I should stress that I would also be alright with even earlier, more brutish standards like "who has the strongest army" or "who can murder people best in hand-to-hand combat."* The key element for me is the ability to provide a rationale for the particular present day form of the institution. I don't see where the extant European monarchies meet that standard. Absent this, it just becomes a dangerous and reflexive assertion of superiority.

*Again, these all have their own problems, just like I'd strongly object to the Iranian system, or to Ender's implication that it might be acceptable to judge some people "better" than others if they are socio-economically more successful. But there's sort of a threshold issue of having a rationale versus not, and then we can proceed to either agreeing or disagreeing with any particular rationale someone puts forward.

 

Yeah I too feel like the Wock is really understating that it's hardly lemon cakes and orgies with the Tyrrell house guards. They basically live their entire life with the purpose of representing and serving the realm, and are more or less prisoners to that. It's churlish to pretend otherwise.

 

So the perceived problem with monarchy is that it normalises inequality?

Personally, I remain far from convinced that removing a crown from someone's head is going to change anyone's perceptions of inequality. Take the PM of the UK. Theoretically anyone could become the PM. In reality though, people know that they won't become the PM because you generally have to have come from a rich family, gone to school at Eton and then studied at Oxford. For the vast majority of people, 10 Downing Street is just as unattainable as Buckingham Palace and they know it.

Would removing the monarchy change that? Not one jot. Instead of making people unhappy by removing a much loved institution for no real gain, it would be better to actually tackle the real and pressing issues of inequality such as low wages, zero hour contracts, old boy networks etc.

 

Or Fettes College...

 

Good post.

I think the polling evidence is a little conflicting due to relatively small samples, but I have seen polls that suggest's very young people (16-17) are largely in favour of preserving the Union -

Encouragingly, young people also seem to identify themselves more strongly as British than Scottish, so assuming the referendum result's in a NO vote, hopefully this younger generation will secure the Union for the next few decades.

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/205540/131129_will-16-and-17-years-olds-make-a-difference.pdf

I suppose it make's sense. They have no memory of Thatcher, the poll tax and all those great social divisions that really fueled the rise of Nationalism from the 1980's onwards. .

All this generation have ever known is the devolution settlement which has brought stability to Scotland.

As far as the "Don't Know's" are concerned, these either typically break for NO (or the status quo) in a referendum or they don't vote. It would be quite unusual for those "Don't Know's" to move into the Yes column this late in the day.

 

I guess I don't see how that's true. As the failure of Cromwell's government--as well as any number of stylistic points he lifted--demonstrate, there was a "tradition" of monarchy in England long before anyone from the House of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha meant anything to the country. No, if you're making a heritage argument, then the idea of monarchy would seem most properly construed as some family holding this position. So why does it need to be any one in particular? And why in perpetuity, when the monarchy has otherwise survived some pretty rapid dynastic turnovers? You're logic seems to take some huge leaps to justify the particulars of today, and I just don't see where that's sound.

Of everyone, you've perhaps come closest. But it's not just inequality. If that was my only issue, I'd have to be opposed to all manner of things in the world. My objection is specific to a particular problem created by modern monarchies that older ones lacked. Precisely because it has evolved as an institution, it has become unmoored from the justifications for its existence. Rather uniquely, then, the monarchy tends to feature a reflexive or intrinsic assertion of superiority. Where at least other forms of inequality can be challenged on their own terms, a priori assertions of superiority are particularly difficult to challenge, and have proven quite destructive to any number of societies.

It is this specific form of logic that I wish to avoid: the idea that something is better without any reason as to why it might be so. Where in earlier eras, many monarchies justified themselves by divine right or military acumen or specific lineage, nothing has really risen up to replace those rationales as they've all now fallen out of fashion. The resultant vacuum is most probably filled by the notion that they don't need a reason to be considered better in the first place.

Nor do I think this is really much of an "accident." For instance, the modern form of the British monarchy was shaped largely by people who were either born in or lived through the twilight era of colonialism. Sexism and racism both were still fairly en vogue. In that context, a monarchy didn't need any special defense. Royal families were better than everyone in the same way that, for instance, a white South African was assumed to be better than a Zulu. We can see the same trend in the way that as the privileges of the European nobility declined, the colonies became a stage for acting out one's powers and privileges. It was so easily transferable because the underlying logic of both phenomenon were the same: some people are inherently and unalterably inferior to others, and society should reflect that truth.

Jello talks about the "necessary" changes. I, for one, count it necessary to do away with a logic inherited from the very worst traditions of modern history.

 

Wocky, can I ask an unrelated question that I'll tie back in later;

Do you think the modern monarchies serve their realms in ways no other civil servant could?