Deputy First Minister John Swinney’s assurance to us Independence “Fearties” that King Charles III would be Indy Scotland’s head of state shows they think it’s the easiest “must have” to deliver in a list including the Pound, no border and economic prosperity.

Two of the SNP’s exemplar small countries, New Zealand and Ireland – English-speaking former colonies to boot – would disagree. Ireland is a republic and New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinta Ahearn said on the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday show that her country will likely become a republic in her lifetime.

If Scotland voted overwhelmingly for Scexit, I'd probably stay, but feel I was living in a country now foreign to the UK. So why have a foreign country’s king?

And anyway, why would King Charles want to be head of state with less constitutional power than before, in a country that rejected his and will, in all probability, be run by a political class that spent its whole life railing against his country's system of government and perceived repression, and would no doubt continue to blame them for their failures and all our ills?

Deputy First Minister John Swinney says an Independent Scotland under the SNP would keep the monarchy (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

What's even worse to consider, however, is what alternative would a cronyist, unimaginative Scottish republic (judging by their last 15 years in power) define and appoint? A glorified Lord Provost of Scotland? A constitutional Makar?

Readers' Letters: Would Charles want to be Indy head of state?