Section 4.10. All persons, with a minimum of five years’ work experience outwith the political field and eligible to vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament, are eligible to stand for election to Parliament. No person who holds executive, administrative, military, diplomatic or judicial public office (other than Ministerial office) may be elected to Parliament unless they resign from the incompatible office. All candidates for election will be selected at constituency level.
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 4.10. Section 4.10. All persons, with a minimum of five years’ work experience outwith the political field and eligible to vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament, are eligible to stand for election to Parliament. No person who holds executive, administrative, military, diplomatic or judicial public office (other than Ministerial office) may be elected to Parliament unless they resign from the incompatible office. All candidates for election will be selected at constituency level.
Section 4.10. It might be possible to provide for leave of absence from an incompatible office, for the duration of the elected mandate, rather than resignation
Section 4.10. The reference to selection of candidates presupposes a party system, but it should be possible for independent candidates to stand for election without any selection process.
Section 4.10. This section is not about the right to vote but about the right to stand for Parliament. I personally agree that no criminal conviction should deprive a person of the right to vote, though I know that others feel differently. However, I think it is worth considering whether conviction of certain offences - in relation, in particular though not exclusively, to electoral wrongdoing or fraud in general - should not be a bar (possibly with a time-limit) to election to public office, of any kind.
Section 4.10. Wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of candidates being excluded because of convictions regarding ‘hate speech’ because it’s rather subjective and can be used & abused by the state to punish dissidents who have legitimate criticisms.
Section 4.10. Agree. Does Greta Thunberg have 5 years work experience? Does someone who has been unemployed have work experience? There should be no restrictions on who stands for Parliament. Let the voters decide.
Section 4.10. The parenthesis "(other than Ministerial office)" might also be reconsidered. In the UK and Scottish parliaments, it is considered axiomatic that ministers be members of parliament. In France, the approach is somewhat different. A member of the French national assembly who is appointed minister relinquishes his or her seat to a deputy, who has full time to represent the constituency, for the duration of the ministerial mandate. Ministers may appear and speak before the national assembly, but do not take part in voting. Thus ministers and constituency representatives both have full-time, but completely separate, jobs. This is a model worth considering.
Section 4.10. What constitutes work experience in the political field? Trades union? grassroots campaigning? Setting up and running a charity? Writing a book? all of these could be considered 'political field', but doesn't mean that those individuals should be excluded from standing for election. I think putting restrictions on any person who is eligible to vote is in danger of being profoundly undemocratic. I understand the sentiment behind this, and it would be right to require candidates to relinquish certain roles, or to be resident in the country, or to be of voting age etc, but the principle of the constitution is about democracy and sovereignty remaining with the people who vote. What if a government chose to introduce a policy which directly affected people aged 16 to 21 (e.g. a university education tax, or military service). The voters affected would be unable to stand for election to counter such policies.
Section 4.10. Any constraint (other than criminal offences) is an attempt to lock the future to the past. If Greta Thunberg was Scottish I would be happy to vote for her as soon as she was old enough.
Section 4.10. Comments I make earlier will override some of the above, if they are accepted. Surely, if it is with the people of Scotland to choose democratically who represent them then putting a five years limit on it is not only discriminatory against school leavers and young people but also takes a potential candidate option out of their hands? If a citizen wants to vote for someone to represent them who has work experience in the political field or who has been unemployed for one reason or another then they should have that option. They can decide to give their vote to someone else if they deem the five year minimum work experience a priority for them. Also, a host of issues around what is deemed as 'work experience'; paid work only, voluntary activities, disability, student etc.
Section 4.10. I do not know how feasible this would be, but having viewed with dismay the level of corruption in other governments, I propose that some mechanism be incorporated into the Constitution to sever the link between material wealth and political power. All candidates for political office should be required to declare financial assets and interests, and a threshold put in place to disqualify those with excessive wealth from certain political offices.
Section 4.10. Tricky… trouble is its one of the most important and responsible jobs in the Nation but it’s not the electorate who select the candidates – it’s the Party hierarchy and they are very differently motivated. All we can do is use the Constitution to keep them as honest as possible.
Section 4.10. To limit to stand for Parliament to people with a minimum work experience, is discriminative against all those who for whatever, but legitimate reason have been unable to fulfil this condition. What about, for instance, a 22 years-old candidate with 4 years of work experience following education until 18th year? (see for more in https://www.drwillem.org/constitution)
Section 4.10. I agree with the latter on those holding executive, administrative, military, diplomatic or judicial public office not being eligible unless they resign from their positions but what about the idea that anyone at the minimum required age can choose to run as a candidate regardless of work experience because surely that excludes the poor from being able to run for office? Also, what would be defined by Work Experience?
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 4.10. Section 4.10. All persons, with a minimum of five years’ work experience outwith the political field and eligible to vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament, are eligible to stand for election to Parliament. No person who holds executive, administrative, military, diplomatic or judicial public office (other than Ministerial office) may be elected to Parliament unless they resign from the incompatible office. All candidates for election will be selected at constituency level.
Section 4.10. It might be possible to provide for leave of absence from an incompatible office, for the duration of the elected mandate, rather than resignation
Section 4.10. The reference to selection of candidates presupposes a party system, but it should be possible for independent candidates to stand for election without any selection process.
Section 4.10. There should perhaps be provision for excluding those convicted of (certain) criminal offences.
Section 4.10. Disagree. Which criminal offences would exclude voting? Everyone should have the vote.
Section 4.10. This section is not about the right to vote but about the right to stand for Parliament. I personally agree that no criminal conviction should deprive a person of the right to vote, though I know that others feel differently. However, I think it is worth considering whether conviction of certain offences - in relation, in particular though not exclusively, to electoral wrongdoing or fraud in general - should not be a bar (possibly with a time-limit) to election to public office, of any kind.
Section 4.10. Wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of candidates being excluded because of convictions regarding ‘hate speech’ because it’s rather subjective and can be used & abused by the state to punish dissidents who have legitimate criticisms.
Section 4.10. The requirement of five years' work experience outwith the political field would have excluded Mhairi Black.
Section 4.10. It implies a lower age limit in the mid-twenties, for most people.
Section 4.10. Agree. Does Greta Thunberg have 5 years work experience? Does someone who has been unemployed have work experience? There should be no restrictions on who stands for Parliament. Let the voters decide.
Section 4.10. The parenthesis "(other than Ministerial office)" might also be reconsidered. In the UK and Scottish parliaments, it is considered axiomatic that ministers be members of parliament. In France, the approach is somewhat different. A member of the French national assembly who is appointed minister relinquishes his or her seat to a deputy, who has full time to represent the constituency, for the duration of the ministerial mandate. Ministers may appear and speak before the national assembly, but do not take part in voting. Thus ministers and constituency representatives both have full-time, but completely separate, jobs. This is a model worth considering.
Section 4.10. This seems very sensible.
Section 4.10. What constitutes work experience in the political field? Trades union? grassroots campaigning? Setting up and running a charity? Writing a book? all of these could be considered 'political field', but doesn't mean that those individuals should be excluded from standing for election. I think putting restrictions on any person who is eligible to vote is in danger of being profoundly undemocratic. I understand the sentiment behind this, and it would be right to require candidates to relinquish certain roles, or to be resident in the country, or to be of voting age etc, but the principle of the constitution is about democracy and sovereignty remaining with the people who vote. What if a government chose to introduce a policy which directly affected people aged 16 to 21 (e.g. a university education tax, or military service). The voters affected would be unable to stand for election to counter such policies.
Section 4.10. Any constraint (other than criminal offences) is an attempt to lock the future to the past. If Greta Thunberg was Scottish I would be happy to vote for her as soon as she was old enough.
Section 4.10. Comments I make earlier will override some of the above, if they are accepted. Surely, if it is with the people of Scotland to choose democratically who represent them then putting a five years limit on it is not only discriminatory against school leavers and young people but also takes a potential candidate option out of their hands? If a citizen wants to vote for someone to represent them who has work experience in the political field or who has been unemployed for one reason or another then they should have that option. They can decide to give their vote to someone else if they deem the five year minimum work experience a priority for them. Also, a host of issues around what is deemed as 'work experience'; paid work only, voluntary activities, disability, student etc.
Section 4.10. I do not know how feasible this would be, but having viewed with dismay the level of corruption in other governments, I propose that some mechanism be incorporated into the Constitution to sever the link between material wealth and political power. All candidates for political office should be required to declare financial assets and interests, and a threshold put in place to disqualify those with excessive wealth from certain political offices.
Section 4.10. Tricky… trouble is its one of the most important and responsible jobs in the Nation but it’s not the electorate who select the candidates – it’s the Party hierarchy and they are very differently motivated. All we can do is use the Constitution to keep them as honest as possible.
Section 4.10. To limit to stand for Parliament to people with a minimum work experience, is discriminative against all those who for whatever, but legitimate reason have been unable to fulfil this condition. What about, for instance, a 22 years-old candidate with 4 years of work experience following education until 18th year? (see for more in https://www.drwillem.org/constitution)
Section 4.10. I agree with the latter on those holding executive, administrative, military, diplomatic or judicial public office not being eligible unless they resign from their positions but what about the idea that anyone at the minimum required age can choose to run as a candidate regardless of work experience because surely that excludes the poor from being able to run for office? Also, what would be defined by Work Experience?