so how does it differ from allowing the elected government of the day enact policy
We'll have to go off on a tangent of FPTP vs. PR election systems to start picking that one apart!
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
White Paper (THE #indyref thread)
(2915 posts)- Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Yeah thats a different problem, but the LibDems killed that stone dead in the UK.
But iScot will have PR so why is the constitution so desperately required; the make of the government will be representative of the electorate. (an additional different problem but one we must live with in a democracy....)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@steveo
My understanding is no more sophisticated than yours I dare say. I see a constitution as defining the goals for which a people come together and the contract between the governed and the government that sets out how the goals are to be achieved.
The first part inspires and helps in a crisis, a situation not envisaged in the law. If the constitution stipulates democracy, then the military may hesitate to enact a coup.
The second part sets out clearly what the government cannot do irrespective of circumstances. GCHQ is watching me type these words because I have simply no idea how, or indeed if I have any right, to stop them. An American citizen knows that they are by right protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
Written constitutions can't, I don't think, be good for tennis clubs and republics but not for Scotland.
Posted 10 years ago # -
so why is the constitution so desperately required
To quote your earlier point, if I may;
All perfectly civilised and rudimentary and doesn't actually do anything which isn't covered by existing UK law.
I'd wager that neither of us can prove or disprove this, as neither of us are constitutional lawyers with the time or means or expertise to compare the written draft to vagueries of the UK system.
Personally I think it's very important that we could actually both understand it (and not just to make this debate easier!). How on earth is anyone meant to identify the bits that they don't agree with in the UK system if it's so difficult to find what they are? I guess a lot of people don't have a problem with various aspects of the UK constitution because they've never been exposed to some of it's darker corners.
You need to have some sort of starting point if you are to try and create a modern nation. The constitution is it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Guys let me ruminate on what you've written.
On one level I see where you're coming from on the other I have fundamental problems with restricting the freedoms of a future democratically elected parliament simply because it looks like a good idea at the time.
Consider how a constitution written prior to WW1 would look to us now and consider how what we write in the next few years may effect future generations.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Quintin Hogg (1976) famously described the UK parliamentary system of government as "elective dictatorship".
I'm old enough to remember campaign group Charter 88, who tried (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to get a written constitution adopted for the UK. I presume that elective dictatorship just suits the government of the day rather too well, regardless of political hue.
A written constitution, defining the limits on powers of the executive branch of government, and its relationship to parliament and the judiciary, is absolutely necessary. That it does not exist in the UK is the cause of many abuses of power by the executive branch.
For those concerned about the make up of an independent Scottish government, a written constitution would provide safeguards, checks and balances to exceutive powers. I can't see why anyone not actually part of the government would be opposed.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@steveo
Without a written constitution, how do we respond to this;
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation
We're left flapping our mouths like beached fish when we should really be in the streets asking very pointed questions of those who govern us.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Consider how a constitution written prior to WW1 would look to us now and consider how what we write in the next few years may effect future generations"
That's why they get amended!
It wouldn't be 'easy' - but probably easier to agree on than "British values"!
One problem with the BV argument is defining things that are 'exclusively' British (and admirable at the same time!)
I'm sure a Scottish Constitution would have some wooly stuff about 'human values/rights' (as opposed to Scottish ones) - but that would be a good way to start things off.
Posted 10 years ago # -
For those concerned about the make up of an independent Scottish government, a written constitution would provide safeguards, checks and balances to exceutive powers. I can't see why anyone not actually part of the government would be opposed.
We're all part of the government, we elect them. If politicians can't be trusted to act in the electorates best interests that is a separate issue.
The UK system severely limits the voters choice which is perhaps a part of the problem but if the people of iScot were to end up back in the state where we are with Westminster then it would not be the political class to blame.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Without a written constitution, how do we respond to this;
We don't, the people we elect to run the country respond to things. Alternatively the Swiss method is great, if a little costly...
Posted 10 years ago # -
That's why they get amended!
But if they're flexible enough to be amended they're basically worthless as a way to restrict the government and if they're inflexible they're just a straight jacket.
Which brings me back to the point where I don't see the real need.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I can't see why anyone
I've seen this phrase banded around a lot in this thread and perhaps represents the biggest problem with the debate.
"I can't see why anyone doesn't agree with me"
perhaps trying might help.Posted 10 years ago # -
We're all part of the government, we elect them.
Oh no we're not.
I have never voted for the Tories, neither the Lib Dems. Didn't vote for Labour after 1992 either. So I emphatically did not help elect any of the UK governments in my entire lifetime.
If your argument is instead that by taking part in elections, we endorse whoever gets elected, that's a different matter. Arguably it's the people who didn't vote that have 'won' most recent elections. The Euros just gone are a case in point: more than 60% of voters couldn't be arsed, so UKIP got a seat in Scotland...
"I can't see why anyone doesn't agree with me"
perhaps trying might help.What are your counter arguments to adopting a written constitution? I still don't see clearly where your position is coming from.
if they're flexible enough to be amended they're basically worthless as a way to restrict the government and if they're inflexible they're just a straight jacket.
Feeling pessimistic today? Most countries have a constitutional court to rule on any amendments put forward by executives of the day. Such a structure will be....enshrined in a written constitution.
Ultimately these checks and balances may or may not protect the citizenry from an autocratic government should one come to power, however are you saying you prefer Brenda/Charlie/royal sprogs to exercise a veto in some cobbbled together, ad hoc way?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"more than 60% of voters couldn't be arsed, so UKIP got a seat in Scotland..."
But is there any evidence that the views of the 60% who didn't vote are significantly different from the 40% who did? (I don't know, which is why I'm asking....)
Posted 10 years ago # -
What are your counter arguments to adopting a written constitution? I still don't see clearly where your position is coming from.
...
"Tying the hands of future generations to the morals and values of the current should be unthinkable after the last hundred years of change in the UK."
"But iScot will have PR so why is the constitution so desperately required; the make of the government will be representative of the electorate. (an additional different problem but one we must live with in a democracy....) "
"I have fundamental problems with restricting the freedoms of a future democratically elected parliament simply because it looks like a good idea at the time."
Sorry I apparently haven't been clear... A written constitution often ends up either a straight jacket for future generations or so light its worthless. My counter is why bother? Others are at least trying to discuss the matter...
Crowriver, you are just shouting at any one with a differing view and mocking that opinion. That might work in the pub but for me I'm mostly just filtering your opinion out.
Posted 10 years ago # -
If Scotland is to be a Kingdom with a written constitution then I'll be interested to see how they square the circle of obliging a person to be our head of state on the basis of their parenatge and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
which guarantees us all - the High Steward of Scotland included - the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Will the Scottish succession also bar Catholics from being head of state as the UK one does? That also appears not to be in obvious accordance with Article 9.
Posted 10 years ago # -
For the record, and given what IWRATS notes above, the draft constitution doesn't go nearly far enough for me.
Indeed, apparently (according to a monumental expose in the Scotchman on Sunday) there may be some republicans in the ranks of the Yes
conspiracycampaign! Not sure how those highly skilled investigative journalists at Johnston Press managed to scoop that one. Perhaps they went to the lengths of, oh, I dunno, actually reading* some of the various Yes-aligned groups' leaflets?* - to their credit, a lot more than most other journos seem to have been able to do
Posted 10 years ago # -
Crowriver, you are just shouting at any one with a differing view and mocking that opinion. That might work in the pub but for me I'm mostly just filtering your opinion out.
Now, now steveo. Next you'll be saying you're "intimidated" as another forum member tried on some pages back.
What is an internet forum anyway? A slightly random group of folk with a common interest. A bit like a pub, except instead of booze the common interest is (usually) sommat else. It's not Hansard, certainly.
So I'm somewhat perplexed by your insistence on Oxbridge debating society etiquette. Anyway, if I was SHOUTING I'D BE TYPING EVERYTHING IN CAPITALS LIKE THIS WITH AN EXCLAMTION MARK AT THE END (OR THREE)!!!
So, while I may be (as Ringo once said) a bit of a mocker, it is only gentle. I hope we can agree that I'm not SHOUTING at anyone. There's no audio capability in ASCII text anyway so it's a physical impossibility.
To respond to your points (not sure they constitute an argument frankly):
Tying the hands of future generations to the morals and values of the current should be unthinkable
You fail to demonstrate that a constitution in fact does this. In any case, legislation (arguably) does this all the time. Exhibit A: Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. Will future generations thank the Scots Parly for this? Mebbes aye, mennes naw. If not, they can repeal or amend. Constitutions can also be amended, they are not divine proclamations.
But iScot will have PR so why is the constitution so desperately required
This confuses two separate issues: the method of electing representatives; and the limits on the powers and responsibilities of various branches of government. Despite PR, the SNP got a majority in 2011, something the electoral system was designed to prevent. So elective dictatorship can still occur under PR. The checks and balances in this case are the Scotland Act, which limits the powers of the Scots Parly and reserves (too) many to Westminster. After independence, a constitution will be required to define the scope of powers of government's different facets, if nought else.
I have fundamental problems with restricting the freedoms of a future democratically elected parliament
This does not address a situation where one party is excessively dominant in Parly. If said party chooses to abuse its power, we have a problem of the Parly exercising too much "freedom" at the expense of the citizenry. A constitution puts in place safeguards to stop this from happening. So for example certain rghts of the individual could be held inalienable (as in US constitution or ECHR). These would be protected by the judiciary from the whims of the elected government of the day.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Amongst the many tropes used to rubbish the notion of Scots running their own affairs, the most distasteful to me is the notion that the prime motivation is a hatred of 'the English'.
On the way home last night I stopped at Waitrose to buy Normandy cider and banana shallots (ooh, how bourgeois!) for last night's chicken and chorizo in cider (treacherous foreign food!). On leaving the shop I bumped into a local Yes Scotland canvassing team and naturally exchanged pleasantries with them.
As I made my way home it suddenly occured to me that all three of them had English accents.
The disconnect between the way the referendum is reported and my experience of it in real life is starting to make me wonder if I am mad or hallucinating.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's convenient for the media to conflate a distrust / dislike (and I'm sure in some people's case a genuine hatred) of a British government sitting in England, with England and the English and "Englishness". They like to selectively find a few tweets or facebook posts from the usual trolling morons who inhabit the lower reaches of social media as evidence for this. (Give me 5 minutes and I'll dig you up "evidence" that everyone in the world "hates" everyone else.) Badging pro-Yes persons and groups as a bunch of English haters is a cheap and easy stick to try and beat people with. It's also so hopelessly wrong that if anyone were to spend 5/10 minutes chatting with some volunteers or groups they'd see through it like the dirty slander that it is.
But then again there's an ingrained inability in the media to differentiate between England and Englishness and Britain and Britishness when it's not convenient for them, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. I guess they think "why bother? When 90% of the populace are the former, you're going to be getting it right for 9/10 readers / viewers.
I think it would do England a power of good to rediscover and embrace what should be strong regional identities - even if there isn't (yet) a clamour for more local governance. Or we could all opt for Cameron's or Millbot's centrally-manufactured and imposed "British values" wrapped up in a Union flag as a national identity.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@IWRATS agreed.
http://www.englishscotsforyes.org/Posted 10 years ago # -
I have noticed while perusing the Electrical Commission website earlier that the English Democrats political party (don't confuse them with any of the other English "Defence League" type parties, they're a genuine - if small - political party that have been campaigning for English devolution for some years now) has registered itself as a Yes campaign organisation. I assume they've twigged that removing Scotland from the Westminster equation will bring a more representative Government for England (or they're a bit bored of Scotland religiously sending down 40 Labour MPs to follow the party whip, year after year).
Posted 10 years ago # -
The Electrical Commission have announced the first set of donors to the permitted participants;
JK Rowling is a hard-working resident of Edinburgh and I'd like to see her out knocking doors as well as writing million pound cheques. But who, pray, is the Seventh Earl of Verulam? Why is he so interested in opposing Scottish self-determination that he has contributed to Vote No Borders Ltd, a PR company domiciled at 24 Chiswell Street, London, EC2Y 4YX through the vehicle of the Stalbury Trustees? It is most curious.
Disclosure: I am a donor to Yes Scotland and Wings Over Scotland, though not the kind of money that gets my name released.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Another opportunity may not come along for quite a while.
"
http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/a-letter-to-scotlands-new-radicals
Posted 10 years ago # -
That is an excellent essay, thanks. I do try to emphasise on the doorsteps that if we vote Yes in September it will only be the start of a long hard road. A No vote means not taking the hard road, but staying in the ditch, which may be more comfortable for a while.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I saw Gerry Hassan speak at a National Collective event a month or so back, he's an excellent and learned speaker and not afraid to be deeply critical of his "own" side. That of course is very healthy. He got a good round of applause when he took the rather populist stand-up to task for her cheap analogy that the Union was an abusive marriage with England the beating, drunken husband and Scotland the cowering, put-upon wifey in the corner.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm not sure the hard road or comfortable ditch choice is really consistent with Hassan's idea that we would "embark on something with more risk and danger". The ditch, comfortable or not, seems to me more consistent with the image of someone cowering and put-upon.
Posted 10 years ago # -
So things are certainly hotting up where I live. People are joining my local Yes Scotland group to canvass. One random guy passing by last night asked how he could join in.
However, I'm still trying to digest a conversation from last night. I canvassed a gentleman who was voting No, and he was willing to talk about his choice. Essentially he understood the benefits of independence perfectly well and agreed with the principle of self-determination. However, his ex employer has forced him into self-employment. He has had to take a loan to buy his own van, and the ex employer lets him know if there's work for him to do. Sometimes there isn't and he doesn't get paid. He just thinks that the slightest upset to the economy could see him default on his loans, lose his van and be facing ruin.
This weekend I'm staying at a friend's house in the country. He's the same age as me, but he has no further need to work. This happy situation came about because the company of which he was a director was bought over by the No voter's ex-employer.
What the big company has done is essentially to make my neighbour pay for my friend's lifestyle by shifting some of their operational risk onto him. My neighbour now feels himself to be in a position where he is unwilling to risk the Yes vote that he knows is a possible lifeline to a fairer society. It was quite a stark lesson in the effects of allowing capital free reign.
I promised him that I would reflect on the consequences of my Yes vote for people like him, and I will do just that.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I promised him that I would reflect on the consequences of my Yes vote for people like him, and I will do just that."
Realistically there is no way of predicting the future for people 'trapped' like that.
It's probably true that he is in that position because of decades of Westminster Governments largely encouraging 'the free market'.
How much Salmond/Sturgeon/Swinney would do things differently (Yes or No) is clearly open to question - as is who will control Westminster and Holyrood after future elections.
The 'you will be better off with US' arguments (from both 'sides') seem to have dissipated as politicians have realised that no-one believes their impossible promises.
After the Referendum I doubt if many people will be significantly better off financially. How much an Independent Scotland would 'avoid' a Westminster style "austerity" is unknowable. If Labour replaces the current UK Government they are hardly promising much change.
These are all things that people are weighing up in advance of their September voting decision.
For some the chance of a chance of things being different is enough to vote Yes. There can be few who think that voting No will mean that everything just stays the same.
There will be people voting No because they believe they will be worse off with Independence. Voting out of self interest is perfectly reasonable, and what happens at most elections.
Some people will be voting No because they think most people (either in Scotland, or the UK, or perhaps the world in general) would be worse off with Yes.
That is either pessimism or realism...
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
ALEX Salmond is being unfair to voters in the referendum by “promising milk and honey” when he should be spelling out the “painful choices a separate Scotland would have to make”, the UK’s chief treasury minister has claimed."
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
