Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland which holds that the founding principles of Scotland are based on Constitutional Democracy. The people are the supreme source of authority of the government which derives the right to govern from their consent.
Please scrutinise all the proposed amendments and replies before commenting or voting. Short comments are most often read and must not exceed 100 words. You can propose an Amendment at the bottom of this page - please read the guidelines .
Note that the original wording appears again first below and sustains the same comment & voting regime as all other amendment proposals.
Section 1.2. Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland which holds that the founding principles of Scotland are based on Constitutional Democracy. The people are the supreme source of authority of the government which derives the right to govern from their consent.
Section 1.2. This is meaningless without a citizens’ body to oversee the constitution in practice and monitor the work of government to ensure it is compliant with the constitution. The USA is a “constitutional democracy” but ever since its inception, the government has actually denied certain groups their constitutional rights. The current Administration seems intent on further restricting rights of many citizens and with a compliant Supreme Court filled with political appointees there may be no way of legally curtailing the power of the executive.
We need a representative citizens’ body, which cannot be annulled, to hold the executive to account.
Section 1.2. The State and the judiciary must be kept separate. Judges, members of the supreme court, etc. cannot be government/presidential appointees. This system seems to work well in the UK.
Section 1.2. This Section states the Principle OK but whether a Citizens’ Assembly or a Revising Second Chamber, the ultimate power is the ability of constituents to recall their MP. Making this a practical last resort rather than a theoretical sop is the subject of my proposed amendment to 12.18. If you agree please support it.
Section 1.2. This Section states the Principle OK but whether a Citizens’ Assembly or a Revising Second Chamber, the ultimate power is the ability of constituents to recall their MP. Making this a practical last resort rather than a theoretical sop is the subject of my proposed amendment to 2.18. If you agree please support it.
Section 1.2. One thought I have on this might be "who guards the guardians?" I forget the Latin phrase. I'm not against the idea of a citizens' assembly, which in fact might be a useful way of reviewing specific areas of interest or policy. Regular general elections would be the normal way of holding governments to account, as well as governments being legally obliged to follow the spirit and the letter of the constitution.
Section 1.2. Yes, we need something stronger here. Government by the people and for the people has become government by two corruptible Party Machines andfor Big
Business and dodgy Financial Players. MPs need something constitutional to help them resist these folk.
Section 1.2. I would agree with other commentators that there has to be some final authority on the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Only in the last resort can it be the people (in the context of a revision of, or amendment to, the constitution). Prior to that, the obvious mechanism is a constitutional court or council, competent to rule on the compatibility with the constitution of legislative or executive measures, and on the proper interpretation and application of such measures in the light of the constitution. I think that such a body should probably be separate from the College of Justice, and that provision should be made for it in the constitution. I propose a rewording of this section accordingly.
Section 1.2. Once you hand it over to lawyers, supreme court, politicians etc you effectively hand it to elites, often the public school, oxbridge, big business, banker types. Just look at the Growth Commission, or Westminster. Doing so immediately disenfranchises the ordinary citizen. That's one of the problems with "representative democracy", a contradiction in terms. The people must have a say if we are to get a fairer society, hence my support for citizen assemblies, selected by sortition.
Section 1.2. I firmly believe that the 'Citizens Assembly' should be an official revising body, and fully enshrined in law.
There is much to be said in favour of a bicameral system for Scotland.
Here follows a descripton of a revising body, comprised entirely of unsuspecting residents of Scotland and its islands.
I propose that the size of the Revising Assembly be set in the Scottish Constitution.
Make the number of this assembly an even number, exactly 50/50 male and female, say, Say seventy eight in all.
I propose then, that the very first tranch of this assembly will comprise thirty nine females and thirty nine males.
Selection of the members of the assembly.
Take them from the jurors list. Allow all arguments against serving the nation, to be in line with those that jurors have to contend with.
This will be a service to our country and an honoured duty, however, unlike jury requirements, there should be no upper age limit, though a lower limit should be set.
Section 1.2. This initial introduction to the proposal for a bicameral legislative body, is severely truncated due to the 75 word limit!
Please advise how the complete draft may be submitted for discussion.
Section 1.2. Amendment to Secion 1.2:
The Constitution of Scotland is the supreme law of Scotland which derives its authority from the consent of the people.
Section 1.2. Use of the term "Constitutional Democracy" doesn't mean anything other than that, in principle, we are going to have a democratic constitution ! If one reads the constitutional paper published by ScotGov in June 2023 ("Creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland") and (ii) consults the research related to the Claim of Right etc. done by Salvo (https://salvo.scot/), it seems not unreasonable to conclude that Scotland's direction of constitutional travel is towards Popular Sovereignty. In this context and in the interests of clarity I therefore suggest that the term "Popular Sovereignty" be substituted for "Constitutional Democracy"
Section 1.2. Apart from a few, every nation's constitution will claim that they are a "Constitutional Democracy", and that term can mean whatever the government of the day wants it to mean. Changing the term to "Popular Democracy" places ultimate control with the people and that's where it should forever remain.
Section 1.2. I completely agree. Constitutional democracy is meaningless. The Scottish People are sovereign - even Westminster acknowledges this. So we MUST lead with that concept and I agree it is Popular Sovereignty.
Clarification and introduction of a constitutional authority
Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland. Scotland is a democracy. The legislative, judicial and executive branches of government all derive their authority from the will of the people of Scotland as expressed in this Constitution. Any dispute or uncertainty as to the interpretation of this Constitution, the compatibility with this Constitution of any legislative or executive measure, or the application of any such measure in conformity with this Constitution, shall be determined, where necessary, by a Constitutional [Court / Council / etc].
Section 1.2. A Second Chamber or Citizens Assembly may express an opinion on the principles and the intentions of the Constitution but a Constitutional Court is geared to use the procedures of the law to interpret the meaning of the Clauses. If the result is an unintended consequence then the wording of the Clause needs to be amended using the facilities within the Constitution. I suggest therefor an amendment should provide for the Judiciary (Section 9.2) to provide an appropriate Court from among its Establishment and from time to time as required. What do you say Caledonian?
Section 1.2. Yes to a Constitutional Court, but we need to know in principle who appoints it and is the final decision by an elite of lawyers and judges or a jury of the people – would there be an appeal process?
Popular Sovereignty (Decentralised Direct Democracy)
Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland which holds that the founding principles of Scotland are based on Popular Sovereignty (Decentralised Direct Democracy). The People are the supreme source of authority of the government which derives the right to govern from their consent.
Section 1.2. The fundamental underlying this proposed amendment is that, politically speaking, the People can't do much without the support of the Regions and vice-versa. Together, they're unbeatable ! Don't forget the Strathclyde water privatisation referendum in the mid-1990s - it was the Region and the People, acting together, which made Westminster fold. Amongst other things, the People needed the Region's organisational capacity and logistical support and the Region needed the People's votes. The entire logic of Scotland's constitution should ensure that People+Regions can ultimately trump Parliament+Government.
Proposed Amendments to Section
Please scrutinise all the proposed amendments and replies before commenting or voting. Short comments are most often read and must not exceed 100 words.
You can propose an Amendment at the bottom of this page - please read the guidelines .
Note that the original wording appears again first below and sustains the same comment & voting regime as all other amendment proposals.
Original Version
Section 1.2. Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland which holds that the founding principles of Scotland are based on Constitutional Democracy. The people are the supreme source of authority of the government which derives the right to govern from their consent.
Section 1.2. This is meaningless without a citizens’ body to oversee the constitution in practice and monitor the work of government to ensure it is compliant with the constitution. The USA is a “constitutional democracy” but ever since its inception, the government has actually denied certain groups their constitutional rights. The current Administration seems intent on further restricting rights of many citizens and with a compliant Supreme Court filled with political appointees there may be no way of legally curtailing the power of the executive.
We need a representative citizens’ body, which cannot be annulled, to hold the executive to account.
Section 1.2. The State and the judiciary must be kept separate. Judges, members of the supreme court, etc. cannot be government/presidential appointees. This system seems to work well in the UK.
Section 1.2. This Section states the Principle OK but whether a Citizens’ Assembly or a Revising Second Chamber, the ultimate power is the ability of constituents to recall their MP. Making this a practical last resort rather than a theoretical sop is the subject of my proposed amendment to 12.18. If you agree please support it.
Section 1.2. This Section states the Principle OK but whether a Citizens’ Assembly or a Revising Second Chamber, the ultimate power is the ability of constituents to recall their MP. Making this a practical last resort rather than a theoretical sop is the subject of my proposed amendment to 2.18. If you agree please support it.
Section 1.2. One thought I have on this might be "who guards the guardians?" I forget the Latin phrase. I'm not against the idea of a citizens' assembly, which in fact might be a useful way of reviewing specific areas of interest or policy. Regular general elections would be the normal way of holding governments to account, as well as governments being legally obliged to follow the spirit and the letter of the constitution.
Section 1.2. Yes, we need something stronger here. Government by the people and for the people has become government by two corruptible Party Machines andfor Big
Business and dodgy Financial Players. MPs need something constitutional to help them resist these folk.
Section 1.2. I would agree with other commentators that there has to be some final authority on the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Only in the last resort can it be the people (in the context of a revision of, or amendment to, the constitution). Prior to that, the obvious mechanism is a constitutional court or council, competent to rule on the compatibility with the constitution of legislative or executive measures, and on the proper interpretation and application of such measures in the light of the constitution. I think that such a body should probably be separate from the College of Justice, and that provision should be made for it in the constitution. I propose a rewording of this section accordingly.
Section 1.2. Once you hand it over to lawyers, supreme court, politicians etc you effectively hand it to elites, often the public school, oxbridge, big business, banker types. Just look at the Growth Commission, or Westminster. Doing so immediately disenfranchises the ordinary citizen. That's one of the problems with "representative democracy", a contradiction in terms. The people must have a say if we are to get a fairer society, hence my support for citizen assemblies, selected by sortition.
Section 1.2. I agree, we don’t want the problems of Westminster. Votes by the people only.
Section 1.2. I firmly believe that the 'Citizens Assembly' should be an official revising body, and fully enshrined in law.
There is much to be said in favour of a bicameral system for Scotland.
Here follows a descripton of a revising body, comprised entirely of unsuspecting residents of Scotland and its islands.
I propose that the size of the Revising Assembly be set in the Scottish Constitution.
Make the number of this assembly an even number, exactly 50/50 male and female, say, Say seventy eight in all.
I propose then, that the very first tranch of this assembly will comprise thirty nine females and thirty nine males.
Selection of the members of the assembly.
Take them from the jurors list. Allow all arguments against serving the nation, to be in line with those that jurors have to contend with.
This will be a service to our country and an honoured duty, however, unlike jury requirements, there should be no upper age limit, though a lower limit should be set.
Section 1.2. This initial introduction to the proposal for a bicameral legislative body, is severely truncated due to the 75 word limit!
Please advise how the complete draft may be submitted for discussion.
Section 1.2. Amendment to Secion 1.2:
The Constitution of Scotland is the supreme law of Scotland which derives its authority from the consent of the people.
Section 1.2. Use of the term "Constitutional Democracy" doesn't mean anything other than that, in principle, we are going to have a democratic constitution ! If one reads the constitutional paper published by ScotGov in June 2023 ("Creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland") and (ii) consults the research related to the Claim of Right etc. done by Salvo (https://salvo.scot/), it seems not unreasonable to conclude that Scotland's direction of constitutional travel is towards Popular Sovereignty. In this context and in the interests of clarity I therefore suggest that the term "Popular Sovereignty" be substituted for "Constitutional Democracy"
Section 1.2. Apart from a few, every nation's constitution will claim that they are a "Constitutional Democracy", and that term can mean whatever the government of the day wants it to mean. Changing the term to "Popular Democracy" places ultimate control with the people and that's where it should forever remain.
Section 1.2. I completely agree. Constitutional democracy is meaningless. The Scottish People are sovereign - even Westminster acknowledges this. So we MUST lead with that concept and I agree it is Popular Sovereignty.
Proposed Amendment to Section 1.2.
Clarification and introduction of a constitutional authority
Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland. Scotland is a democracy. The legislative, judicial and executive branches of government all derive their authority from the will of the people of Scotland as expressed in this Constitution. Any dispute or uncertainty as to the interpretation of this Constitution, the compatibility with this Constitution of any legislative or executive measure, or the application of any such measure in conformity with this Constitution, shall be determined, where necessary, by a Constitutional [Court / Council / etc].
Section 1.2. A Second Chamber or Citizens Assembly may express an opinion on the principles and the intentions of the Constitution but a Constitutional Court is geared to use the procedures of the law to interpret the meaning of the Clauses. If the result is an unintended consequence then the wording of the Clause needs to be amended using the facilities within the Constitution. I suggest therefor an amendment should provide for the Judiciary (Section 9.2) to provide an appropriate Court from among its Establishment and from time to time as required. What do you say Caledonian?
Section 1.2. Yes to a Constitutional Court, but we need to know in principle who appoints it and is the final decision by an elite of lawyers and judges or a jury of the people – would there be an appeal process?
Proposed Amendment to Section 1.2.
Popular Sovereignty (Decentralised Direct Democracy)
Section 1.2. This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Scotland which holds that the founding principles of Scotland are based on Popular Sovereignty (Decentralised Direct Democracy). The People are the supreme source of authority of the government which derives the right to govern from their consent.
Section 1.2. The fundamental underlying this proposed amendment is that, politically speaking, the People can't do much without the support of the Regions and vice-versa. Together, they're unbeatable ! Don't forget the Strathclyde water privatisation referendum in the mid-1990s - it was the Region and the People, acting together, which made Westminster fold. Amongst other things, the People needed the Region's organisational capacity and logistical support and the Region needed the People's votes. The entire logic of Scotland's constitution should ensure that People+Regions can ultimately trump Parliament+Government.