2006-09-28 16:33:24 · 13 answers · asked by Frog Five 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
MSPs are Members of the Scottish Parliament.
They presently swear allegiance to the People of Scotland on taking office while Members of Parliament in Westminster (which governs the whole of the UK) swear allegience to the Queen.
2006-09-28 17:01:42 · update #1
Mephistophele's answer is magnificently stupid and Nicola H is jumping to conclusions in the plural. Elizabeth the second is the Queen of Englland, not Scotland. We never had an Elizabeth the first and neither did Great Britain. The union is political and military. What's royalty got to do with it?
2006-09-29 21:52:15 · update #2
No, and neither should MPs in Westminster.
2006-09-28 21:19:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should take the same pledge or oath as their colleagues in Westminster, so as long as MPs swear allegiance to The Queen, I think MSPs should too.
But then I'm biased by being a strong believer in the UK as an entity, rather than component nations - maybe they should start rotating parliament between Edinburgh and London like the original plan.
2006-09-29 11:21:44 · answer #2 · answered by lauriekins 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
MSPs should not be forced to pledge alleigance to the Queen if they do not want to.
Many English people on this site will be up in arms at this but, England only claims Scotland/Wales/Ireland as part of UK when it suits them.
As for the person who said that Scotland should become a republic, how would England fare without Scottish Oil & Gas for example?
2006-09-29 02:44:57 · answer #3 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
MSP = Member of the Scottish Parliament
Yes, unless they are prepared to declare themselves a Republic.
And if that is the case, then perhaps we English can drop all the Scottish seats from the Parliament at Westminster (ponder that one Gordon Brown! ).
2006-09-28 23:49:50 · answer #4 · answered by Martin G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Swearing allegiance to the queen is a bit dated, the scots have it right in swearing allegiance to the people of Scotland, perhaps the English can do that, but would that mean parliment would have to serve the people, casue they dont at the mometn.
2006-09-29 00:45:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They should do both - they do owe more to their voters than to her but like it or not, she still a symbol of the sovereignty of the country. The mace which sits in the parliament represents royal authority. Canada's citizenship oath used to be to the Queen only and was changed a few years ago to include the country itself. The MSPs' oath is a modernisation too far.
2006-09-29 04:02:17 · answer #6 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes! She is the Scots rightful Queen as we have not been a republic since the days of Cromwell and the beheading of Charles 2nd!
James 1st made us the UK because of his Scottish/English blood!
Is this just another way of saying you hate the English?
You know what? who cares!
2006-09-30 03:07:21 · answer #7 · answered by Nicola H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can you explain MSP to us savages out here in the bush?
2006-09-28 23:41:27 · answer #8 · answered by waygook 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They shouldn't be in England in the first place.
2006-09-29 18:57:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they should. We need to reinstall are integrity as brits and reinstall some pride.
2006-09-29 00:29:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋