Constitution

The main problem with a written Constitution, unless it is very basic and simple, is that, in spite of amendments, it becomes locked into its time. Look at the USA and the right to bear arms versus gun control.

Isn't the Magna Carta the nearest thing we have to a Constitution? It seems a good idea to me.

As the election is getting nearer, will this proposed constitution be in place before the election, so everyone can study it and know what it contains before we are expected to vote?

No Newist, there is a commitment from the current Scottish Government that in the event of a YES vote part of the work to be undertaken in the 18 months until 'Independence Day' will be the writing and approval of a Constitution. A constitutional convention will be established drawn from all areas of Scottish life to draft the document and submissions will be welcomed from anyone - which is why many people are turning their thoughts to it now.

The only certainty is that an Independent Scotland will have a constitution whereas there are currently no plans for the UK to adopt one. However, I believe there is a small UK wide 'campaign for a constitution'.

Thanks Granny23 for replying, its all far to vague, everyone I know will only vote when, they know exactly what they are voting for.

Absent Does a Constitution have to be set in stone? Constitutions for other entities can been amended, usually at the AGM or a special meeting called for the purpose. Surely you could ensure that the last article of a national constitution sets out the procedures and terms for proposed amendments?

Well, you would think so, wouldn't you? But I think what absent says about a constitution being "locked in time" is spot on, and wonder about the possibility of amending it. I'd assume that amendments could only take place after a parliamentary debate and vote, but am only guessing.

Perhaps any future constitution will take the experience of other countries into account and build in an adjustment clause to allow it to be updated to reflect a change in society?

On the other hand, why do we need one? We have laws that can be repealed and amended. Aren't they governance enough?

I have long thought that the UK badly needs a written constitution in place of the rag-bag shambles of statutes, treaties, common-law precedents and the royal prerogative that has filtered down over the centuries, together with generous dollops of tradition, patronage, out-dated pomposity and ludicrous costumery. Most other countries have constitutions. They don't always work but if they don't, they can be amended. Maybe its now time for the UK to grow up, and I hope that the Scottish referendum might prompt some progress in this direction.

Papaoscar You have obviously given this matter some thought. Have you any ideas as to which principles/topics should be included in the Constitution?

The American Constitution states something along the lines of: all men are created equal and have certain fundamental rights such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Despite these fine words, slavery existed and, even when it was abolished a sort of "apartheid" system existed in the US.

I have found Wikipedia a useful source of information about the constitutions which most other countries have. They mostly follow this format (see below). I picked Croatia because, it is of course, a relatively new one.

1 History
2 Contents 2.1 Historical foundations
2.2 Basic provisions
2.3 Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
2.4 Organization of Government
2.5 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia
2.6 Local and regional self-government
2.7 International relations
2.8 Amending the Constitution

3 References

It is interesting that almost every country except the UK takes for granted that a country needs a constitution.

Granny23 Yes, a good list of priorities from wiki, the constitutional principles of which I would be happy to accept. I smile to myself when people blithely speak about the British Constitution, as though such a thing actually existed. I wish it did as I'm sure it would put a lot of things into a clearer perspective for us all. Sadly, despite efforts from Lloyd George to T.Blair, efforts to start the process by tidying up the House of Lords have not got very far.

A lot of other 'countries' have only been in existence for a very short time compared to the UK. I suppose writing a constitution is a step on the road to nationhood. Do we need one? Everyone else based theirs on the way our state operated. I think the ragbag we've got is particularly suited to the disputatious and argumentative way we traditionally operate!

LilyG Whilst I am prepared to defend with my pen (or finger these days) the right of people to have their opinions and am proud (whatever that might mean) of being British, I really would like to see some of the smoke, mirrors and fog removed from the British way of life, especially as regards Parliament, even though what would then be revealed might cause the nose to wrinkle!

mollie Magna Carta!! Designed by warlords to give them some rights and restrict the total power of the biggest warlord of all, King John. I would hope that we have moved on. Under Magna Carta I believe no woman was allowed to testify in a court and there was no democracy of any kind.
Granny23 I guess keep it simple:
Would there be a president.
if so, how elected.
What power would they have and what power would parliament have.
What kind of voting system.

We don't need a President, we have a Sovereign! Unless the Scots are planning to become a republic as well as independent? The British constitution is extremely complex. The reason reform of the Lords hasn't made any sensible progress is that any change has so many unintended consequences. We've gone from a second House consisting of hereditary members, hard to defend in the 20th let alone the 21st century to what we have now, even less defensible IMO, much bigger, more expensive and with even less of a democratic mandate. Without a very sound understanding of how the present system operates and where the pitfalls are, you could end up with a giraffe!

The two Acts of Union form part of the unwritten UK 'constitution' and among many other provisions guarantee equal taxation throughout the Kingdoms, which was why there was such a fuss when The Poll Tax was first introduced in Scotland only. The equal taxation provisions would also be breached if the devolved Parliaments were to exercise any tax raising powers.

I was raising the question of constitutions in a generalised way not specifically in relation to a potentially independent Scotland and totally agree with Papaoscar that the UK should have one. I think that the powers that be just use the bits and pieces we currently have when it suits them to pull the wool over our eyes. A proper constitution would surely guarantee equal rights for all citizens and put restrictions on the powers of the Sovereign, the Parliament(s) and my particular bugbear - the House of Lords. I strongly object to a rag tag bunch of undemocratic, unelected placemen and umpteen (all male) bishops from a church to which I have no allegiance, having power to approve, amend or throw out laws which affect me.

Yes, and what a fine source GN would be of members of a reformed upper house! The present House of Lords is a legacy of the past and long due for a proper shake-up. There is urgent need for an elected upper house to oversee and moderate the commons, and whilst the Lords is not all bad, it must be brought up-to-date.

The days of us being governed by the ermine draped inheritors of an institution still festooned with the ludicrous frippery of its dubious past must stop. We sometimes forget that ordinary folk had to fight tooth and nail for their basic human rights against massive resistance from the coroneted thugs and war-lords who ran things in the old days, mainly for their own benefit. So as regards a proper constitution - yes - bring it on, and soon!

Disagree with you about the Magna Carta, JessM but we're not here discussing ancient history. It's what happens next that matters...

Doesn't the saying go "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it".

There's another saying: you can't expect those who profit the most from the existing structure to go ahead and agree to change it.

In other words, the status quo rules. I've always thought so. Didn't they describe Tory policy as 'laissez-faire' in the old days. Same thing, I suppose. Profiteers will never vote to cut their profits.

There will probably be a constitutional crisis when the Queen either resigns or dies. Charles has made it very clear that he would refuse to be the Head of the Church of England- as in a modern multicultural society he should represent all, from all faiths and none- and good on him, I say.