DOCSLIB.ORG

Do We Need a Constitutional Convention for the UK?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Do We Need a Constitutional Convention for the UK? House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Do we need a constitutional convention for the UK? Written Evidence Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry are included. Ordered to be published 14, 21 and 28 June, 10 and 12 July, 6 September, 15, 18 and 30 October and 8 and 29 November 2012 1 List of written evidence Page 1 Canon Kenyon Wright CBE (CC 01, 01A) 3, 6 2 Professor Matthew Flinders (CC 02) 11 3 Constitution Society (CC 03) 14 4 Dr Claire Sutherland (CC 04) 20 5 Dr Alan Renwick (CC 05) 21 6 Graham Pearce and Sarah Ayres (CC 06) 23 7 Michael Gordon and Brian Thompson (CC 07) 29 8 Unlock Democracy (CC 08) 35 9 Democratic Audit (CC 09) 44 10 Professor Iain McLean (CC 10) 53 11 Rt Hon Carwyn Jones AM, First Minister of Wales (CC 11) 57 12 Andrew RT Davies, Leader of the Opposition & Welsh Conservative Assembly Group, Assembly Member for South Wales Central (CC 12) 62 13 Leanne Wood AM, Leader of Plaid Cymru and South Wales Central Assembly Member (CC 13) 65 14 Kirsty Williams AM, Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and Assembly Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (CC 14) 66 15 James Ware (CC 15) 70 16 Ruth Davidson MSP, Leader of the Scottish Conservatives (CC 16) 72 17 Professor James Mitchell (CC 21) 74 18 Law Society of Scotland (CC 17) 80 19 Sir Merrick Cockell, Chairman, Local Government Association (CC 18) 81 20 Esther A Roberton (CC 19) 83 21 SOLACE (CC 20) 86 22 Simon Cramp (CC 22) 89 23 Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Deputy First Minister, Scottish Parliament (CC 23) 90 24 Karen Ghose, Chief Executive, The Electoral Reform Society (CC 24) 92 25 Dr Robin Wilson (CC 25) 103 26 Nigel Smith, Director, Voxscot (CC 26) 105 27 Cabinet Office (CC 27) 106 28 Sir Edward Lister, Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning (CC 28) 114 2 Written evidence submitted by Canon Kenyon Wright CBE (CC 01) SCOTLAND AND UK CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE “Our constitution is wearing out” Lord Hailsham 1. A Constitutional Convention for the UK, which addresses the central issue of the constitutional relationships between the component nations, must begin by recognising (and seeking to resolve) the fundamental conflict between the Scottish and the English (now British) constitutional understanding and traditions. 2. To do this, it might be helpful to identify the distinctive elements that created the Scottish Constitutional Convention, and that in the end led to its success. 3. The most important of these was the traditional Scottish understanding of popular sovereignty, expressed dramatically at the very first session in 1989 when all members solemnly lined up to sign the “Claim of Right for Scotland”. This affirmed “the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs”. Our Convention did not begin with a political aim. It began with a fundamental constitutional principle, and all our work flowed from that. 4. Perhaps not all who signed that day (or who reaffirmed it in the Scottish Parliament earlier this year) fully recognised the implicit rejection of the claim of Westminster, or more accurately, of “the Crown in Parliament” to absolute sovereignty. 5. We reaffirmed a theme that runs through Scottish history—from the Declaration of Arbroath to the 2 previous Claims of Right of 1689 and 1842 , both of which were in different ways a rejection of the Crown’s or Parliament’s right to impose on Scotland. Lord President Cooper, probably the greatest Scottish lawyer of the last century, said “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.” 6. That principle has in practice meant the growing power of the Government and especially the Prime Minister rather than Parliament—a situation the new Scottish Parliament has explicitly renounced. 7. This principle was massively strengthened by the perception, right or wrong, that the Thatcher Government was not only imposing policies that Scotland manifestly rejected, but was seen as an attempt to impose an alien ideology. We saw what could be done by a political system which Lord Hailsham called “an elective dictatorship.” 8. This combination put a strong wind in our sails. 3 9. The Church of Scotland Assembly in 1989 spelled this out and said we had a crisis—“a crisis more real than apparent, within the constitutional foundations of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It is real in that it involves a clear conflict between two totally opposing notions of sovereignty in the Scottish and English constitutional traditions—made apparent by the polarising tendencies in British society in the 80’s but always present and underlying. From a Scottish constitutional (and theological) perspective this English tradition of state absolutism has always been unacceptable in principle. It is now intolerable in practice. The Scottish Parliament must be built upon philosophical foundations that are more coherent and credible than the notions which underpin the existing British constitution.” 10. On this basis, the Convention’s final Report in 1995 said the coming of a Scottish Parliament “will usher in a way of politics that is radically different from the rituals of Westminster; more participative, more creative, less needlessly confrontational—a culture of openness.…..much more than a mere institutional adjustment. It is a means not an end.” A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE UK? 11. There is a strong case for a Constitutional Convention for the UK. There are I believe a number of crucial questions which Scotland brings to the debate. 12. The main roadblock to real change is the unwritten constitutional doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, with the enormous powers of patronage and royal prerogatives which this gives in reality to the Prime Minister. 13. It is of course true that in practice alternative bases of more or less secure power have been created in the smaller nations, but the legal right of Westminster to have the last word remains. Indeed it may be used to shape the coming Referendum. 14. Any Convention must therefore have the mandate to look at the constitutional foundations of each of the nations, and at alternative models of relationship. This would include such issues as: the need for a written constitution defining the relationships of the 4 nations; the principle of subsidiarity and real sharing of power; the meaning of Autonomy within a reformed Union; the anomaly of the “West Lothian question”; the case for an English Parliament and government; the case for a Federal, Quasi Federal or Confederal system; the role and shape of the UK Parliament in any new system; the role and shape of a second chamber in a new UK. 15. This inquiry is a real opportunity for some bold and imaginative thinking about the future of a Union in need of reform. Let us not be too timid or afraid to think innovatively. 4 May 2012 5 Further written evidence submitted by Canon Kenyon Wright (CC 01A) “We must not let ourselves believe that a bit of technocratic tinkering here, a bit of constitutional consultation there, will do the trick. I believe there is only one way out of this national crisis we face: we need a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power. Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street." David Cameron, then leader of the opposition Speech to the Open University in Milton Keynes. January 2009 1. I believe that the Scottish constitutional story is more likely to embody that “massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power” and therefore, as the Constitutional Convention recognised, has profound relevance to the constitutional debate in the UK. 2. My purpose now is, first, to suggest some of the issues raised by the coming referendum; then to outline the historical Scottish view of constitutional power which was the firm foundation of the Scottish Constitutional Convention; and finally to propose what this might mean for a possible UK Constitutional Convention. The Referendum – Scotland the What? 3. Like many individuals and organisations in Scottish civil society, I pressed for the inclusion of a second question, offering not just more devolution, which by definition leaves the constitutional dilemma basically unsolved, but rather “Secure Autonomy”. My reason is simple. I hoped this unique opportunity could be used to offer a solution that recognised Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty, but kept the integrity of the Union—albeit a radically reformed Union! The only way short of independence which could really recognise Scotland’s position, is a move towards a Federal or Quasi-federal Union—but I recognise that the F word is a red rag to a bulldog. 4. However this is now academic. The case for a second question has been lost, not by debate in Scotland or her Parliament, but effectively by an edict from Westminster. That alone might come back to haunt the debate before 2014. There may be many in Scotland, deprived of any other hope of real secure constitutional change, who will feel disenfranchised, and may reluctantly turn to independence as the only opportunity for real change on offer for a generation. 5. The crucial need is to get beyond the narrow slogans which make the debate so shallow. Both sides need now to define positively and with clarity, the kind of 6 Scotland they offer, and how it will be different, and take its place as a new democracy among the nations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Voting Systems
    SUBMISSION 103 Strengthening our democracy through voters understanding what influence they can wield. Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into civics and electoral education Proportional Representation Society of Australia http://www.prsa.org.au July 2006 p. 1 Introduction p. 2 Elements of a strategy to improve voting awareness p. 3 The Society's interest p. 5 A proud tradition of electoral innovation in earlier years p. 6 Promotion of vigorous discussion about electoral systems p. 7 How an Australian Democracy Web site might work p. 8 Specific matters to be covered p. 9 Recent unfortunate consequences of failure to make voters’ wishes central in Commonwealth elections p.10 House of Representatives votes needlessly rendered informal at the start of the scrutiny p.11 Six Senate vacancies ordinarily in each State a backward step p.12 The Senate party-box short-cut regularly backfires p.15 Senate transfer values definition untenable in computer age p.16 Party box methods in the States have also had major problems p.19 Electoral outcomes of the last twenty-five years regularly unfair despite equalised enrolments p.20 Minority-support and lopsided outcomes where enrolments equalised p.23 Removing enrolment imbalances in recent years hasn’t ended unsatisfactory outcomes p.25 Lop-sided outcomes lead to challenges to the legitimacy of first-past-the-post methods overseas p.28 Hare-Clark system at forefront of emphasising voter influence p.32 Setting of some basic national civics and related information goals
    [Show full text]
  • A Canadian Model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A
    Proportional-first-past-the-post: A Canadian model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Memorial University St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador May 2014 ii Abstract For more than a decade a majority of Canadians have consistently supported the idea of proportional representation when asked, yet all attempts at electoral reform thus far have failed. Even though a majority of Canadians support proportional representation, a majority also report they are satisfied with the current electoral system (even indicating support for both in the same survey). The author seeks to reconcile these potentially conflicting desires by designing a uniquely Canadian electoral system that keeps the positive and familiar features of first-past-the- post while creating a proportional election result. The author touches on the theory of representative democracy and its relationship with proportional representation before delving into the mechanics of electoral systems. He surveys some of the major electoral system proposals and options for Canada before finally presenting his made-in-Canada solution that he believes stands a better chance at gaining approval from Canadians than past proposals. iii Acknowledgements First of foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my brilliant supervisor, Dr. Amanda Bittner, whose continuous guidance, support, and advice over the past few years has been invaluable. I am especially grateful to you for encouraging me to pursue my Master’s and write about my electoral system idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation and Election: the Reapportionment Cases in Retrospect
    Michigan Law Review Volume 67 Issue 4 1969 Representation and Election: The Reapportionment Cases in Retrospect William P. Irwin Case Western Reserve University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Election Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation William P. Irwin, Representation and Election: The Reapportionment Cases in Retrospect, 67 MICH. L. REV. 729 (1969). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol67/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REPRESENTATION AND ELECTION: THE REAPPORTIONMENT CASES IN RETROSPECT William P. Irwin* HETHER constitutional historians of a later generation will W consider the reapportionment cases of 1962-1964 to be as important as several contemporary scholars have suggested1 is an open question. Not many Supreme Court decisions, of course, are rewarded with such an outpouring of comment-both favorable and critical-in the journals of law and political science, in the popular press, and along the communications networks of concerned. interest groups. The very novelty of a reinterpretation of the "political question" doctrine,2 especially as it related to the sensitive matters of legislative composition and behavior, was bound to excite wide and varied response. But one test of the importance of a judicial decision must be its long-range influence on the constitutional system, and this may or may not be in accord with first speculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Unlock
    Unlock Democracy incorporating Charter 88 How healthy is our local democracy? Ros Scott years of Unlocking Democracy This pamphlet is based on a speech given by Ros Scott at Liberal Democrat Party Conference in 2008, at an Unlock Democracy lecture. Our lecture and pamphlet series are intended to provoke debate on and interest in issues relating to democracy and human rights. As an organisation promoting democratic reform and human rights, we may disagree with what our contributors say - but we are always stimulated by and grateful to them. The views of the authors of this work should not be presumed to be the opinion of Unlock Democracy or its staff. First published by Unlock Democracy in 2009. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 2.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit www. creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc/2.0/uk/ How healthy is our local democracy? Ros Scott1 Much of what really matters to us is on our doorstep. The condition of roads, the quality of local schools, the availability of leisure facilities like swimming pools and libraries, and whether or not our bins are emptied efficiently should be daily reminders about the state of our local democracy. And yet, it is all too rare to hear debate about the performance of the council, at least in anything other than a general sense, the choices which are available, or about the potential power of the ballot box to change things. Democracy, like charity, begins at home. If citizens feel disconnected from the democratic processes closest to home, then what hope is there for wider engagement? If government in all its forms can’t do anything about the dog dirt and paving slabs, how can anyone have confidence in its ability to deal with a global economic crisis, environmental degradation and threats to our security? After being closely involved with local government for almost 20 years, it is my belief that genuine local democracy in this country is in terminal decline.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of Unlock Democracy
    Unlock Democracy Constitution As amended at the Annual General Meetings held on 21 November 2009, 26 November 2011, 10 November 2012, 9 November 2013, 8 November 2014, 7 November 2015, 12 November 2016, 18 November 2017, 24 November 2018, and 23 November 2019. 1. Purpose Unlock Democracy argues and campaigns for a vibrant, inclusive democracy that puts power in the hands of the people. We seek a democratic participative process resulting in a written constitution that serves and protects the people. That constitution would define the roles of, and relationships between, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. It would determine how, and to what extent, power is shared between representatives at local, national and United Kingdom levels, and with international organisations. It would enshrine basic liberties and human rights for all. We campaign: • for fair and open elections; • for transparency in public decision making • to ensure that power is exercised as close to people as is practicable • to empower individuals and their communities to have a greater say over the decisions that affect them • for democratic accountability of all elected representatives, government and public bodies • for universal human rights for all. We promote: • a new culture of informed political interest and responsibility, paving the way for increased enthusiastic public participation • a pluralist democracy that is responsive to the problems and aspirations of all people, valuing and accommodating difference, diversity and universal human rights. Everyone has the right to live their life in dignity under the law, and free from fear. Unlock Democracy is a non-aligned organisation, committed to working inclusively across the political spectrum.
    [Show full text]
  • Women and Electoral Reform in New Brunswick
    Women and Electoral Reform in New Brunswick Brief presented by the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women to the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy July 2004 This is a publication of the: New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women The New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women is a body created by provincial legislation to study and advise on issues of concern to women and to bring these before the public and the government. The Council is composed of 13 women appointed by government who meet at least four times per year to determine priorities for action on women's issues. July 2004 Ce document est disponible en français. Demandez Les femmes et la réforme électorale au Nouveau-Brunswick. Women and Electoral Reform 2 N.B. ACSW – July 2004 Table of Contents Executive Summary ……………………………………………………….. 4 Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 5 1. Electoral System Reform ……………………………………………… 7 1.1 First-past-the-post: a familiar but flawed system…………… 8 1.2 Searching for a fairer model: proportional representation… 10 1.3 Mixed member proportional systems………………………… 11 1.4 First Nations representation …………………………………. 16 2. Addressing the Under-representation of Women in Elective and Appointed Office ……………………………………………………… 18 2.1 Why does gender balance matter?……………………………. 18 2.2 Barriers to women’s representation ………………………….. 22 2.3 Correcting the gender imbalance……………………………… 26 3. Enhancing Public Participation in Governance ………………………… 32 3.1 Gender-based analysis: a tool for gender equity in policy- making ………………………………………………………… 33 3.2 Other mechanisms for bridging the gap between citizens and government………………………………………………………. 34 3.3 On the use of referendums …………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford DNB: January 2021
    Oxford DNB: January 2021 Welcome to the seventieth update of the Oxford DNB, which adds biographies of 241 individuals who died in the year 2017: 224 with their own entries and seventeen added to existing entries as 'co-subjects'. Of these new inclusions, the earliest born is the journalist Clare Hollingworth (1911-2017) and the latest born is the artist and photographer Khadija Saye (1992- 2017). Hollingworth is one of five centenarians included in this update, and Saye one of thirty-four new subjects born after the Second World War. The vast majority (169, or over 70%) were born in the 1920s and 1930s. Sixty-three of the new subjects who died in 2017 (or just over 26% of the cohort) are women. Twenty of the new subjects were themselves contributors to the dictionary. Forty-five of the new articles include portrait images. From January 2021, the Oxford DNB offers biographies of 64,071 men and women who have shaped the British past, contained in 61,745 articles. 11,870 biographies include a portrait image of the subject—researched in partnership with the National Portrait Gallery, London. As ever, we have a free selection of these new entries, together with a full list of the new biographies. Most public libraries across the UK subscribe to the Oxford DNB, which means you can access the complete dictionary for free via your local library. Libraries offer 'remote access' that enables you to log in at any time at home (or anywhere you have internet access). Elsewhere the Oxford DNB is available online in schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Imperative of Proportional Representation
    The Constitutional Imperative of Proportional Representation Two fundamental values underlie the Supreme Court's debate about constitutional rights in voting: majority rule and minority representation. The debate has taken the traditional system of winner-take-all single- member districts as a given. Yet within the traditional system, neither value is fully attainable, and gains in one are often traded off against losses in the other. The achievement of minority representation is espe- cially limited by the inability of a geographically districted system to re- present all groups simultaneously. Although reapportionment has led to an approximate fulfillment of the majoritarian value, gerrymandering, to- gether with a strict reapportionment standard, continues often to deny representation to racial or political minorities.' The Court's inability to realize the minority representation value has led it to create a false distinction between the right at stake in the reap- portionment cases, said to be an individual right, and the right at stake in the gerrymandering cases, said to be merely a group right. This false dis- tinction has served to justify providing less protection against gerryman- dering than against malapportionment, less protection for minority repre- sentation than for majority rule. The right at stake in the reapportionment cases is the right to an equally weighted vote,2 strongly protected by the one person, one vote standard. This right can be guaranteed within the existing system, even if at some cost to minority representation. The right at stake in the gerry- 1. Reapportionment concerns the relative population sizes of districts. Malapportionment occurs when districts are unequal in size.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Matters: Lessons from the Citizens' Assembly on English
    Democracy Matters Lessons from the 2015 Citizens’ Assemblies on English Devolution Matthew Flinders | Katie Ghose | Will Jennings | Edward Molloy | Brenton Prosser | Alan Renwick | Graham Smith | Paolo Spada John Penrose MP Minister for Constitutional Reform Cabinet Office Whitehall London SW1 100 Dear John Over the past twelve months the Democracy Matters research team has been conducting a pilot project on the use of citizens’ assemblies to explore complex elements of constitutional policy- making in the United Kingdom. The focus has been on English regional decentralisation, as covered in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, and two citizens’ assemblies were convened in the North and South of England. It is with great pleasure that I now submit the final report on this valuable research and engagement project. I hope you and your officials will find its content and recommendations valuable in a number of different ways. Two main conclusions come from the research. First and foremost, there is an appetite amongst the public to engage in informed and constructive discussions about the future of British democracy and about specific policy proposals. The citizens’ assemblies in Southampton and Sheffield have demonstrated that individuals from a range of backgrounds can and are willing to work together to plan a common future and to understand future challenges. Second, the research suggests that the public are generally supportive of the principle of devolution within England. The pinch-point is the nature of the model of devolution on offer from the Government and the lack of public engagement in the decision-making process as it has so far been conducted.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Referendum Alan Renwick the CONSITTUTION SOCIETY AFTER the REFERENDUM OPTIONS for a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
    Report Options For a For Options Constitutional Convention After Referendum the After Alan Renwick Renwick Alan After the Referendum Alan Renwick THE CONSITTUTION SOCIETY AFTER THE REFERENDUM OPTIONS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Alan Renwick First published in Great Britain in 2014 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9928904-0-7 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. AFTER THE REFERENDUM 3 Contents About the Author 5 Summary 6 Part 1: Constitution-Making: The Building Blocks 6 Part 2: Constitution-Making around the World 8 Part 3: How Should the Options be Judged? 9 Part 4: Designs for Constitution-Making in the UK 10 Acknowledgement 13 Introduction 14 Part 1: Constitution-Making: The Building Blocks 17 1.1 What are the Purposes of the 17 Constitution-Making Process? 1.2 Who is Represented? 19 1.3 What Basic Structures are Available? 21 1.4 Who can Influence the Constitution-Making 25 Body’s Deliberations? 1.5 What are the Constitution-Making Body’s 26 Operational Procedures? 1.6 What Happens to the Proposals that are Made? 27 4 AFTER THE REFERENDUM Part 2: Constitution-Making around the World 30 2.1 Expert
    [Show full text]
  • Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality
    Journalism Studies ISSN: 1461-670X (Print) 1469-9699 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjos20 Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality Justin Lewis & Stephen Cushion To cite this article: Justin Lewis & Stephen Cushion (2017): Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality, Journalism Studies, DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1389295 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1389295 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 26 Oct 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 605 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjos20 THINK TANKS, TELEVISION NEWS AND IMPARTIALITY The ideological balance of sources in BBC programming Justin Lewis and Stephen Cushion Is the use of think tanks ideologically balanced in BBC news and current affairs programming? This study answers this question empirically by establishing which think tanks are referenced in different BBC programming in 2009 and 2015, and then classifying them according to their ideological aims (either left, right, centrist or non-partisan). We draw on a sample size of over 30,000 BBC news and current affairs programmes in 2009 and 2015 to measure how often these think tanks were men- tioned or quoted. Overall, BBC news reveals a clear preference for non-partisan or centrist think tanks. However, when the Labour Party was in power in 2009, left and right-leaning think tanks received similar levels of coverage, but in 2015, when the Conservative Party was in government, right-leaning think tanks outnumbered left-leaning think tanks by around two to one.
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Scotland's Future in Scotland's Hands
    Scotland’s Right to Choose Putting Scotland’s Future in Scotland’s Hands What if that other voice we all know so well responds by saying, 'We say no, and we are the state'? Well we say yes – and we are the people. Canon Kenyon Wright Putting Scotland’s Future in Scotland’s Hands Introduction by the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon First Minister of Scotland The Scottish Government believes the best future for Scotland is to be an independent country in order to build a fairer, more prosperous society. It is a fundamental democratic principle that The Scottish Government is a strong advocate the decision on whether or not Scotland of the values of human dignity, freedom, becomes independent should rest with the democracy, equality, the rule of law, and people who live in Scotland. respect for human rights. There has been a significant and material We are therefore committed to an agreed, change in circumstances since the 2014 legal process which adheres to and celebrates referendum and therefore, in line with the those values, and which will be accepted as mandate received in the 2016 Holyrood legitimate in Scotland, the UK as a whole, and election, and reinforced in subsequent UK by the international community. general elections—most recently in December 2019—the Scottish Government believes Scotland is not a region questioning its place people in Scotland have the right to consider in a larger unitary state; we are a country in a their future once again. voluntary union of nations. Our friends in the rest of the UK will always be our closest allies The decision on whether a new referendum and neighbours but in line with the principle of should be held, and when, is for the Scottish self-determination, people in Scotland have the Parliament to make – not a Westminster right to determine whether the time has come government which has been rejected by the for a new, better relationship, in which we can people of Scotland.
    [Show full text]