Section 3.1. The Head of State will, following selection by a referendum of the People of Scotland in terms of Article 13.4, be appointed by Parliament in accordance with the legislation governing selection, appointment and recall.
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 3.1. Section 3.1. The Head of State will, following selection by a referendum of the People of Scotland in terms of Article 6.4, be appointed by Parliament in accordance with the legislation governing selection, appointment and recall.
Section 3.1. If one referendum option is a republic with an elected President and that gains a simple majority then I guess the Electoral Commission would have to agree the terms of appointment and organize an election.
Section 3.1. On my reading, no, it could still be a constitutional monarchy. However (and this is a comment on the article as a whole rather than on this particular section), what is envisaged seems very much a puppet head of state with no real powers of initiative or decision, someone to perform ceremonies. This draft constitution therefore does not go for a presidential regime of the American, French or Russian variety. Nor would I. But I think there's a lot to be said for a properly regulated constitutional monarchy, but one much more streamlined than the current UK version. Monarchy brings with it a sense of tradition and continuity and, on a venal note, is much more likely to attract tourists than a man in a suit - nobody flocks to see Macron! But there are yet other possibilities. A collective head of state, for example, along the lines of the Swiss Federal Council, or an elective monarchy ...
Section 3.1. I like the idea of a collective head of state, along the lines of the Swiss Federal Council. This would contribute to getting away from the personality cult that is prevalent today.
Section 3.1. 1) I propose a dual head of state, one male, one female. They could rotate on a monthly basis., or some other arrangement. They should probably be fully ceremonial, except for the ability to award a certain number of honours/awards.
2) If the initial referendum voted for a monarchy, there could still be a regular affirmation or rejection at set periods, say every four or five years in the same manner as a presidential election. If rejected at one of these affirmations, then another election would follow within six months (where they could re-present themselves alongside other candidates).
Section 3.1. The Model Constitution here is NOT prescriptive – merely a prompt for debate via Comments and perhaps the odd reference, hopefully leading to Proposals upon which the voting & ranking protocol can help assess popularity.
Section 3.1. I agree with above comment. It should be made clear in the wording of the constitution that the monarch is king or queen of Scots and has no political function other than those listed in the original comment. It would do no harm to reemphasize that it is the people who are sovereign
Section 3.1. Section 3.1 No-one should ever be appointed Head of State on an 'hereditary' basis. The constitution should note we will Not continue this anti-democratic policy and will instead select a 'Citizen' of our choice. The arguement that we need a 'sovereign' to ' generate 'tourism spend ' is specious and irrelevant in a true democracy. Let us instead elect an (elder?) respected citizen with real-life (and work) experiences/knowledge/understanding - possibly an ex-diplomat/MSP to begin with? (As noted above, the post could be held for a fixed term with no right of automatic re-selection after that term. We need leaders selected on ability and merit, not birthright.)
Section 3.1. Could a Head of State be non political if appointed by Parliament. Would the majority in power not go for one of their own? The monarchy does generate a lot of tourism spend. Would a President do the same?
Section 3.1. What kind of person are we envisaging standing in a referendum for Head of State?Would they need to have experience & knowledge of public office?I am just a bit wary of having a populist figure elected because we have seen what damage they can do.
Section 3.1. I'm rather surprised that there is a whole section devoted to this question. I'm not entirely clear why it is necessary to have a head of state at all. Surely it is bizarre, in a country run by an elected parliament, to designate a single individual in this capacity. And if it is a purely ceremonial role, again, why does it need a whole section?
Section 3.1. Just how events over the next few years will pan out for the Windsor Succession is uncertain but the outcome of this referendum is likely to be more clear-cut than at present - so the prospect in the foreseeable future can only be a good thing. Meantime all this Article need do is decide upon the duties of Head of State.
Section 3.1. Wouldn’t it be better to decide who gets to the be the Head of State, in my view it should be the elected First Minister, not someone decided in a referendum or even the Monarchy of the UK, in an actual election instead of a referendum?
Section 3.1. Section 3.1. The Head of State will, following selection by a referendum of the People of Scotland in terms of Article 6.4, for a period of time to be pre-determined by parliament be appointed in accordance with the legislation governing selection, appointment and recall.
Section 3.1. The President of the Republic will be Head of State. He or she will be elected for a term of five years directly by the people, through free elections. The candidate who obtains more than one-half of the total vote is elected; and this principle is ensured in accordance with the law, either by eliminating candidates and transferring their votes, or by holding a run-off ballot between the top two candidates.
Section 3.1. An independent scotland should be a republic unambiguously, no "ifs", "buts", and "referendums". This amendments establishes a directly elected presidency based off the common European practice: election directly by the people, by majority vote, for a five-year term.
This amendment goes hand-in-hand with the new sections 3.1A and 3.1B, proposed in the other comments.
Section 3.1. New Section 3.1A: The President of the Republic may be removed by vote of two-thirds of the members of Parliament, for proven incapacity or misbehaviour; and may be recalled by the people at any time. The ordinary presidential elections take place during the first week in November. If the office of President falls vacant for whatever reason, extraordinary presidential elections must take place within ninety days.
New Section 3.1B: Other matters regarding presidential elections will be established by law, but the legislation governing the election and recall of MPs apply to the President of the Republic with all necessary changes.
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 3.1. Section 3.1. The Head of State will, following selection by a referendum of the People of Scotland in terms of Article 6.4, be appointed by Parliament in accordance with the legislation governing selection, appointment and recall.
Section 3.1. Am I right in thinking that this would, in effect, mean that we are a Republic? This I would fully support.
Section 3.1. If one referendum option is a republic with an elected President and that gains a simple majority then I guess the Electoral Commission would have to agree the terms of appointment and organize an election.
Section 3.1. On my reading, no, it could still be a constitutional monarchy. However (and this is a comment on the article as a whole rather than on this particular section), what is envisaged seems very much a puppet head of state with no real powers of initiative or decision, someone to perform ceremonies. This draft constitution therefore does not go for a presidential regime of the American, French or Russian variety. Nor would I. But I think there's a lot to be said for a properly regulated constitutional monarchy, but one much more streamlined than the current UK version. Monarchy brings with it a sense of tradition and continuity and, on a venal note, is much more likely to attract tourists than a man in a suit - nobody flocks to see Macron! But there are yet other possibilities. A collective head of state, for example, along the lines of the Swiss Federal Council, or an elective monarchy ...
Section 3.1. I like the idea of a collective head of state, along the lines of the Swiss Federal Council. This would contribute to getting away from the personality cult that is prevalent today.
Section 3.1. 1) I propose a dual head of state, one male, one female. They could rotate on a monthly basis., or some other arrangement. They should probably be fully ceremonial, except for the ability to award a certain number of honours/awards.
2) If the initial referendum voted for a monarchy, there could still be a regular affirmation or rejection at set periods, say every four or five years in the same manner as a presidential election. If rejected at one of these affirmations, then another election would follow within six months (where they could re-present themselves alongside other candidates).
Section 3.1. The Model Constitution here is NOT prescriptive – merely a prompt for debate via Comments and perhaps the odd reference, hopefully leading to Proposals upon which the voting & ranking protocol can help assess popularity.
Section 3.1. I agree with above comment. It should be made clear in the wording of the constitution that the monarch is king or queen of Scots and has no political function other than those listed in the original comment. It would do no harm to reemphasize that it is the people who are sovereign
Section 3.1. Section 3.1 No-one should ever be appointed Head of State on an 'hereditary' basis. The constitution should note we will Not continue this anti-democratic policy and will instead select a 'Citizen' of our choice. The arguement that we need a 'sovereign' to ' generate 'tourism spend ' is specious and irrelevant in a true democracy. Let us instead elect an (elder?) respected citizen with real-life (and work) experiences/knowledge/understanding - possibly an ex-diplomat/MSP to begin with? (As noted above, the post could be held for a fixed term with no right of automatic re-selection after that term. We need leaders selected on ability and merit, not birthright.)
Section 3.1. Could a Head of State be non political if appointed by Parliament. Would the majority in power not go for one of their own? The monarchy does generate a lot of tourism spend. Would a President do the same?
Section 3.1. What kind of person are we envisaging standing in a referendum for Head of State?Would they need to have experience & knowledge of public office?I am just a bit wary of having a populist figure elected because we have seen what damage they can do.
Section 3.1. There is no mention that the Head of State should only sit for a fixed term, we need to include regular re-election in the constitution.
Section 3.1. I remember Mary Robinson and Mary McAlese did a great job as Presidents of Ireland.
Section 3.1. I'm rather surprised that there is a whole section devoted to this question. I'm not entirely clear why it is necessary to have a head of state at all. Surely it is bizarre, in a country run by an elected parliament, to designate a single individual in this capacity. And if it is a purely ceremonial role, again, why does it need a whole section?
Section 3.1. Sorry - for 'section' above, I meant 'article.'
Section 3.1. Agreed.
Section 3.1. Just how events over the next few years will pan out for the Windsor Succession is uncertain but the outcome of this referendum is likely to be more clear-cut than at present - so the prospect in the foreseeable future can only be a good thing. Meantime all this Article need do is decide upon the duties of Head of State.
Section 3.1. Wouldn’t it be better to decide who gets to the be the Head of State, in my view it should be the elected First Minister, not someone decided in a referendum or even the Monarchy of the UK, in an actual election instead of a referendum?
Proposed Amendment to Section 3.1.
fix term as Head of State
Section 3.1. Section 3.1. The Head of State will, following selection by a referendum of the People of Scotland in terms of Article 6.4, for a period of time to be pre-determined by parliament be appointed in accordance with the legislation governing selection, appointment and recall.
Proposed Amendment to Section 3.1.
Proposed Amendment to Section 3.1
Section 3.1. The President of the Republic will be Head of State. He or she will be elected for a term of five years directly by the people, through free elections. The candidate who obtains more than one-half of the total vote is elected; and this principle is ensured in accordance with the law, either by eliminating candidates and transferring their votes, or by holding a run-off ballot between the top two candidates.
Section 3.1. An independent scotland should be a republic unambiguously, no "ifs", "buts", and "referendums". This amendments establishes a directly elected presidency based off the common European practice: election directly by the people, by majority vote, for a five-year term.
This amendment goes hand-in-hand with the new sections 3.1A and 3.1B, proposed in the other comments.
Section 3.1. New Section 3.1A: The President of the Republic may be removed by vote of two-thirds of the members of Parliament, for proven incapacity or misbehaviour; and may be recalled by the people at any time. The ordinary presidential elections take place during the first week in November. If the office of President falls vacant for whatever reason, extraordinary presidential elections must take place within ninety days.
New Section 3.1B: Other matters regarding presidential elections will be established by law, but the legislation governing the election and recall of MPs apply to the President of the Republic with all necessary changes.