THE Scottish Secretary's adviser on the constitution has tried to distance himself from his fiery republican past, admitting some of his views on the monarchy were "a bit extreme".
Professor Adam Tomkins, who became an unpaid adviser to David Mundell last month, had previously railed against "the weirdness of the present generation of Windsors".
Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University, also attacked "the degrading rituals of pomp and servility that accompany majesty", the "sheer unfairness" of an hereditary head of state, and claimed the royals had a "long history of tax avoidance".
He complained that monarchy was "fundamentally incompatible with democracy" because the Queen confers huge power on ministers allowing them to bypass parliament and escape scrutiny.
"You're either a monarchist or you're a democrat. You can't be both," he wrote.
"If you want an accountable government you have to choose to abandon the monarchy."
Tomkins laid bare his feelings in an article in May 2004, in which he listed the "many arguments against monarchy".
Five months later, he spoke at the 'Declaration of Calton Hill,' an event staged by the Scottish Socialist Party to rival the Queen's official opening of the new Holyrood building.
The Declaration began: "We the undersigned call for an independent Scottish republic".
According to a contemporary report, Tomkins "delivering a damning indictment of the monarchy" and said it was incompatible with democracy.
Tomkins also met the artist and author Alasdair Gray at the event, and they went on to co-author a book arguing for a republic called "How we should rule ourselves".
In it, the pair said they were both "of the left" but neither belonged to or endorsed to any party.
Tomkins is now an active Conservative.
Gray said he was "sorry" that Tomkins had dropped the republican cause.
"I suppose it depends on your degree of prosperity," he told the Sunday Herald.
Tomkins's past views are sharply at odds with those of his Tory boss in the Scotland Office.
In 2013, Mundell said pro-independence republicans were "out of touch... with the people of Scotland" and insisted "the Royal Family are part of the fabric of Scottish life".
Asked about his republicanism, Tomkins said his interest had been of a "dusty, antiquarian academic" kind and he "didn't know" if he ever signed the Declaration of Calton Hill.
"I quite like the pomp and ceremony these days. My republicanism has softened," he said.
Reminded of his written article, he said: "Yes, that sounds like me. That sounds a bit extreme.
"It's the kind of thing I probably would used to have said, but I wouldn't say that [now]."
"One of the reasons I don't worry as much about these things as I did 10 years ago is because many of the legal powers of the Crown have been taken into parliament.
"The Fixed Terms Parliament Act (FTPA) is a really good example. It used to be the case that the Prime Minister could decide when the next general election was...because they effectively wielded the old prerogative Crown power of dissolution.
"The FTPA rips all that up and it puts that power in the hands of backbenchers.
"In the sense of being a parliament man, who thinks parliament should make [key] decisions and not judges or members of the royal family or even ministers, I'm still fully signed up.
"But in terms of getting rid of the Queen and having a presidency, I'm probably not signed up to that anymore, because I just don't see the point. It's not a priority. It's not happening."
Former Socialist MSP Colin Fox, who spoke alongside Tomkins at the Declaration of Calton Hill, said: "He's gone from Cromwell's side to the Cavaliers. He should be ashamed of giving up on democracy in favour of the divine right of kings and hereditary privileges. Although that does make him pretty much at home in the Tory party."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article