@keyboardkat
HoS as President would be the guardian of the constitution. New laws are subject to the President's seal. Any issues of note or controversy to be referred to a Council of State where representatives of legal, professional, medical, academic and others decide whether the proposed law passes scrutiny, and if there are doubts, refer to the Supreme Court. Thus the President is neutral politically.
So the president would be in complete control. No law gets passed unless they agree with it?
Who decides if a law is controversial or of note? How do they decide? Are we run by the president, the unelected Council and faceless, unelected judges? I thought the complaint was that we needed to be more democratic? But with all these people scrutinising, what's the point of elected politicians? How can they be elected on a mandate if ultimately a group of lawyers get to decide if their mandate is OK to be carried out? Who knows what their politics are?
I am not worried about the money spent on a President.
It's interesting that you think it will be cheaper that a monarchy. The Sovereign grant us £52m pa. It goes to pay for the upkeep of Royal buildings - which are owned by the state and don't belong to the monarch per se - for entertaining heads of states and dignitaries, so state banquets, entertainments etc, for celebrating citizens of the uk and commonwealth countries with garden parties etc. All those things would still need to be paid for, regardless of who is head of state.
The French presidency costs over €100m pa. Quite a bit more expensive.
Plus, a national election costs just over £100m. For a 5 year term, a president costs £20m before they even start work. And then they have to learn all the ropes,and make international contacts. They'll just be getting au fait with that and they'll be gone.
Anyone can see that it would be minor compared to that spent on the RF for weddings, funerals, opening of Parliament, Trooping the colour, King's birthday and so on
France is a Republic, so is Russia, China, etc. They all still have annual state occasions that require pageantry of some sort. All countries desire a national identity and annual state occasions play into that. When presidents die, they have state funerals. In the US their state funerals cost more than those in the UK. And they go through presidents quicker than we go through monarchs. In the UK the broadcasting rights to the queen's funeral and the coronarion were sold to recoup costs. And there was a boom on the economy.
The RF would still exist and they can still do their thing, but at their own expense!
The RF don't take a wage. The sovereign grant only covers travel expenses. A president would need travel expenses and a wage.
The Presidency of Ireland (Republic of), is one I like the look of. Yes there are some former politicians who have been elected, but as I said, the Irish Presidency is neutral, has no political power, and is a figurehead only. Unlike Macron and Biden for example.
All the presidents have been involved in politics. None were without political affiliation.
Plus, political parties put forward the presidential candidates. No independent or non political person can run. It's completely controlled by politicians - often with back rom negotiations. Some years candidates stand unopposed so there isn't even an election. If you're just going to have someone appointed, why not just have a king? How is it different?
I think the president of Ireland has actually has been criticised for behaving politically. I'm not disputing the cause of that, or criticising the president, because I can't remember the details. But it's hard for political people not to be political.