1. 17-05-2007 17:18

It is rumoured that Gordon Brown wishes to amend the Constitution making it unnecessary for the Home Secretary as was to attend royal births. Most would consider more comprehensive changes might be appropriate.

Registered

2. 17-05-2007 19:04

I wonder how many people in Scotland would recognise a good Constitution if they walked right into one on a Saturday night. This is not an idle thought. The future of Scotland depends on the answer to this question. Having a healthy constitution for a country is just as important as having a healthy (bodily) constitution.

Registered

3. 18-05-2007 20:05

What’s going on ? 
 
We have a new first minister, a new Scottish Executive, and a new administration - I congratulate them all and wish them a worthwhile journey, fuelled with wisdom, into this chapter of Scotland’s story. I trust and hope that their motivating force is for Scotland to have, and set a good example of, a consciously happy, healthy and harmonious state of being - what any enlightened, intelligent people and nation would look like. 
 
On the matter of what things look like, this is a very significant point in our human story to look at government more closely than we have ever done before. The concept of ‘governance’ contains issues of power and control, we don’t need that anymore. It’s like growing up really, it has come to the point where all identifiable nations need to be independent and interdependent in an appropriate and considered manner, the point where we need to take control of our own destiny and enjoy and nurture all the rights, responsibilities and vast potential that go with that. At this point in human evolution what people most seem to want is representation, upholdance of commonly agreed groundrules, and the accurate and effective execution of administrative responsibilities, rather than governance.  
 
Power residing with all the people depends on an articulate and eloquent common depiction and definition of what we are, who we are, what we are about, and how we want be - as parts of a whole human family - in this case, the Scottish contingent. So let the people prepare for all eventualities in the near or more distant future by creating what we need in Scotland to map our destiny: a constitution - a well written and very well thought out constitution. 
 
The collective people of any nation are its sovereigns. So explore the links, read the articles and educate yourself on matters of constitution, and what they mean. The public debate about the essence and ethos of a modern, conscious, enlightened Scottish Constitution begins here. Please join in.

Registered

4. 31-05-2007 19:27

Mandy Ewing's post provides a perfect lead into what I would like to contribute. I work with the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe, a think-tank which supports and promotes 'direct democracy' as an essential complement to representative democracy. 
In democratic theory, a purely or mainly representative system such as we have can only be legitimate if that is the system the people - as sovereign - have chosen. 
The electorate of the UK has never been asked what kind of system of 'governance' it wants (I, too, have difficulties with the word - representative institutions such as parliaments and executives are not there to govern, but to serve. In a genuine democracy it is the people who have the right to make the major decisions). 
A constitution (written) is an agreement between the people about the distribution of power, the 'rules of the game'. Most of the constitutions of the states of Europe accord sovereignty to the people, even if very few of them then go on to provide the means for popular sovereignty to be exercised. 
I am currently translating the new constitution of the Canton of Zurich. It is a wonderful example of a constitution drafted and agreed by the people, with clear direct-democratic rights of initiative and referendum. It could well serve as a model for a future Scottish constitution. I think people in Scotland would be quite amazed at the degree of popular control of the political agenda people in Zurich - and in Switzerland in general - enjoy. 
Another fine example is the organisation 'More Democracy' in Germany, which has succeeded in securing direct-democratic rights in all the federal states of Germany. 
Direct democracy is not just right in principle. It is the means by which the creative talents of the whole population can feed into the political process, and also the means by which politicians can be made genuinely accountable. 
It would be a pleasure to be part of a constitution-making process in Scotland which restored democracy to this part of the UK.

Registered

5. 02-06-2007 05:26

The case for a new convention is strong, the case for a written constitution unanswerable. 
 
Getting either though will prove difficult, The key will be in establishing and approach and with it structures that are genuinely participative and can gain the confidence and interest of civic Scotland, very broadly defined. This believe is achievable but it will be no easy task, indeed historically and internationally it would be an absolute first - the direct involvement of a population in the framing of its own constitution. 
 
And in Scotland we have two other problems to overcame - who are “the population”? Here we need to be conscious of the quite legitimate and growing calls for England/UK for a Constitutional Convention - something to be encouraged. But I fear the type of Convention even the best of its supporters have in mind is the type of convention we set up in 1988. No bad thing - but Scotland has moved well beyond that. There is I think a very real danger we are drawn into such an exercise, patronised and slowed down by structures which will be controlled by the political parties in general and one in particular - we al know which one!. 
 
This leads on to our second obstacle - political parties in Scotland. None have a good track record of putting the common good or “the people” ahead of theory own partisan considerations and I fear with our hung parliament and the very specific day to day "crisis" ethos that it will create, it will be even more difficult than ever it get them out of their partisan straightjackets. And here we need to be honest with ourselves - the reason labour and the Lib Deems signed up for the 1988 convention was impotence - it was the only way forward and to do nothing would have just played into ther hands of a resurgent ( post Govan by-election) SNP. Now, because of the hung parliament and et proximity of a UK general election/Brown succession, none, SNP in particular, are impotent and in my view, despite a few encouraging noises for a few genuine enough politicians, none of et actual parties will risk the compromise environment of a Convention as a result. 
 
I say all this not to put a damper on things, but to emphasis the point than any new convention cannot be remotely like the 1988 one - it cannot be party based with civic add on, but rather needs the other way around. Yes we would want party involvement, but it needs to work without parties, their bluff needs it be called. Not at all easy, but with the IT empowerment tools and the networking opportunities these offer, plus some astute tactics and imaginative approaches, I do think things are possible now which were simple not available in 1988. 
 
If I could on a communications/perceptions point, I am not even sure we should use the name “Constitutional Convention“. Yes it is in a constitutional convention we need - but could we not think of another name for it, something fresh and a clear indicator that this was not our attempt to recreate the Mound 1988? - a great moment all involved should be proud of, but somebody else’s moment, pre devolution Scotland’s not Scotland 2007’s. Nor, with an altogether different name could we be confused with any UK Convention, nor become a sub committee of it.

Registered

6. 30-07-2007 12:53

Hello everyone: 
 
I've just returned for my first visit to your astoundingly beautiful country. I think it's a reasonable assumption that politicians are in it to get elected and then re-elected ... that's right at the top of their agenda. Our former premier "Ralph Klein" was very fond of saying the he would "figure out which was the parade was going and then jump out in front" (expletives have been deleted :-(. 
 
Alan makes a very good point when he mentions "IT empowerment" as this is a venue that cannot be controlled by government (yet)or their lackeys in the media, and has a real potential to create a strong grass-roots movement. 
 
I think the most important argument you will need to make is the economic one. While I was visiting I asked several people if the they thought an independent Scotland could survive and to a person they said "no." I don't believe that's true, I think it's a matter of priorities. Rather than spending £400 million on Hollyrood, one of the ugliest monuments to the utter hubris and stupidity of politicians I have ever come across, that money should have been put into a first rate technical institute.

Registered