The interest of institutions are necessarily more narrow. The trade unions here are affiliated with the Labour party and typically big companies are seen to support the Liberal party with the National party more typically representing agricultural interests.

You are very right. Political views and appointments to positions of public responsibility ought ideally be separate. Of course, some people are very political in an ideological sense and of course if there political views were part of their public persona and they were appointed with a high degree of transparency there should be no difficulty with this also.

So, hopefully, would be the operations of institutions for example it should be possible to be a member of the national trust and also be a member of any of or none of the three political parties mentioned.

The UK is different and has an historical basis with hereditary Lords. It is good to see some born and others created in this context.

I am doubtful about the wisdom of two elected chambers competing with each other and wonder if there could be another way of filling the second chamber. Eg what about having representatives (equivalent to the medieval lords) representing the big institutions: universities, national trusts, the forest service, trade unions, big companies, professional bodies etc. They could bring a lot of wisdom to the legislative process but it would be a pity of their political views came to influence their appointment to positions of responsibility.

Much of the law of the commonwealth was built on the wisdom of the law Lords and this has been the basis for stable democratic government for many countries including Australia. So from afar it is more difficult to see the need to reform the House of Lords (upon which our Senate or Upper House is modeled).

Yes, it is often not appreciated that the revolution in China was as much a cultural revolution as it was a social one. The implications of this will take perhaps may centuries to unfold. It seems however that China is once again beginning to embrace the idea of culture – that is good.
And the young Germans with no experience of East Germany are able to gaze in astonishment at the arrangements and material culture which once existed when the country was divided.

‘What know they of England who only England know?’ Not enough. Your view from ‘the ends of the earth’ (seen from the UK) is wise. From London, it is easy think of the Royal family as the best illustration of Lloyd George’s comment on the need to reform the House of Lords: ‘The question will be asked whether five hundred men, ordinary men chosen accidentally from among the unemployed, should override the judgment, the deliberate judgment, of millions of people who are engaged in the industry which makes the wealth of the country.’
Maybe the Scots will make former PM Gordon Brown ‘the next King of Scotland’ – and then regret it.
I also agree that France’s position in the luxury goods and tourism markets comes from the Bourbons. Ditto, China’s tourist industry has a lot to do with Qin Shi Huang (260–210 BC). It is respectful of the Chinese not to excavate his tomb and I support the policy – while also regretting it. Maybe they should go in, have a peep, and shut it up again.

It does seem that the French are still enjoying the legacy of the royalty through their cuisine, fashion, gardens, architecture, music, ballet etc. If the populous is the genesis of popular culture it can be seen that royalty is the genesis of high culture.

The UK currently has the advantage of a strong high culture and a strong popular culture. I am not sure if these advantages are considered to their fullest extent?

I am inclined to republicanism but can’t see it has conferred many benefits on eg America and France. And I can think of two benefits from a royal family (1) the thought of having ANY of our recent politicians as a president is intolerable (2) the Royal Family is a great soap opera.

I am not sure why history seems to play out this way.

It often seems the Hollywood star system has resulted in America to compensate for not having a royal family. Sometimes political (ie the Kennedy’s) and other establishment families are given similar socio-historical benefits. So, in the light of these eventualities ‘anti-royalism’ is quite a strange phenomenon.

However, it does inform the American dream with Arnold Schwarzenegger neatly encapsulating its celebrity and political elements.

John Marston wrote (after the Union of the Crowns) of a play that ‘It seems to have been written shortly after James’ accession, when the hungry Scots were swarming southwards in quest of preferment Englishmen were justly indignant at the favours bestowed by James on these Scotch adventurers’ and, as with the Irish, there have been many things the Scots like about England, despite a list of complaints as long as your plaid.
History is not a science and, if they wanted to, the Americans could regard the War of Independence as a continuation of the English Civil War. I have read that there was as much support for American self-government on the east side of the Atlantic as there was on the west side. In England, it was plain old-fashioned anti-royalism.
Re English gardens, yes.

Here is a website about why Americans love English people. [ http://hubpages.com/hub/Top-10-Reasons-Why-Americans-Love-England ] If we are going on the American experience perhaps it does take independence to change hate to love?

I am wondering whether you would add to that list ‘The English Garden Tradition’?

I don’t think anyone could accuse the Scots of not praising their famous men and women.
The difficulty Scots independence might encounter was identified by a former neighbour of mine. He was English but had spent his life (as an architect, engineer and planner) in the Scottish civil service. His conclusion (c1965) was that independence could never work because he had never been at a meeting when two Scots were able to agree with each other on any point. He did not say it, but hatred of the Auld Enemy would probably have been an exception – so it has an important role in Scots life (as it does in the Zimbabwe society).