Comments for Constitutional Commission http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog Just another WordPress site Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:05:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Secure Autonomy Discussion Paper by Graeme http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=105#comment-579 Graeme Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:05:33 +0000 http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=105#comment-579 Most of these examples are not stable, so I don't imagine that unionists would support it as a third option. There needs to be some realisation of realpolitic. Any third option has to both garner the sufficient support from the public *and* existing elites. In my view this would be somewhere between Devo + and Max. The closer to Max, the consequent reduction in support from existing elites. Most of these examples are not stable, so I don’t imagine that unionists would support it as a third option. There needs to be some realisation of realpolitic. Any third option has to both garner the sufficient support from the public *and* existing elites. In my view this would be somewhere between Devo + and Max. The closer to Max, the consequent reduction in support from existing elites.

]]> Comment on Secure Autonomy Discussion Paper by Dai Hawkins http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=105#comment-569 Dai Hawkins Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:51:40 +0000 http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=105#comment-569 I am underwhelmed by your giving the cumbersome and ultimately self-destructing Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as a serious model for Britain to follow. As a citizen of Wales, I would not be too keen on living in the British equivalent of the Bohemia of Švejk and Kafka. The status quo in the present United Kingdom is not tenable in the long term; your suggestion would do nothing to ameliorate this situation, and could well make matters worse than they are now. The small print in your suggestion would leave too much power still in the hands of the Westminster élite, both bureaucratic and political. I am underwhelmed by your giving the cumbersome and ultimately self-destructing Austro-Hungarian Monarchy as a serious model for Britain to follow. As a citizen of Wales, I would not be too keen on living in the British equivalent of the Bohemia of Švejk and Kafka. The status quo in the present United Kingdom is not tenable in the long term; your suggestion would do nothing to ameliorate this situation, and could well make matters worse than they are now. The small print in your suggestion would leave too much power still in the hands of the Westminster élite, both bureaucratic and political.

]]> Comment on Claim of Right – your chance to affirm or re-affirm by Elspeth Kane http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=35#comment-377 Elspeth Kane Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:44:51 +0000 http://www.bigcrayon.co.uk/production/constitution/blog/?p=35#comment-377 Chapter XI – Seven Principles of Public Life ii Integrity There's something important missing here, though I can't formulate it very well. One manifestation of corruption (in terms of integrity if not strict legality) is people leaving office and taking up well paid "consultancies" or directorships, and it becomes evident in retrospect that their erstwhile lobbyers have become their benefactors. In other words, while they may not have received money or positions while in office, it's clear their actions or policies while in office have been influenced by the "understanding" or prospect of future personal gain - not limited to material gain, but advantage, honours or status-awards and other juicy inducements. A paragraph on being influenced by the hope, expectation or prospect of future gain or future advantage really needs to be included. MSPs and Ministers should be obliged to publicly disclose, in their declaration of interest, any suggestion with regard to their future advantage or employment made by anyone connected with lobbying. Chapter XI – Seven Principles of Public Life
ii Integrity

There’s something important missing here, though I can’t formulate it very well. One manifestation of corruption (in terms of integrity if not strict legality) is people leaving office and taking up well paid “consultancies” or directorships, and it becomes evident in retrospect that their erstwhile lobbyers have become their benefactors. In other words, while they may not have received money or positions while in office, it’s clear their actions or policies while in office have been influenced by the “understanding” or prospect of future personal gain – not limited to material gain, but advantage, honours or status-awards and other juicy inducements.
A paragraph on being influenced by the hope, expectation or prospect of future gain or future advantage really needs to be included.

MSPs and Ministers should be obliged to publicly disclose, in their declaration of interest, any suggestion with regard to their future advantage or employment made by anyone connected with lobbying.

]]> Comment on Claim of Right – your chance to affirm or re-affirm by Elspeth Kane http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=35#comment-376 Elspeth Kane Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:25:48 +0000 http://www.bigcrayon.co.uk/production/constitution/blog/?p=35#comment-376 the title "First Minister" as at present is preferable to "Prime Minister" because: 1. It reminds us all that the FM is one of a number of ministers; it has echoes of "first among equals" 2. It's straightfoward, unpretentious 3. We've got used to it, it's become distinctively Scottish! 4. "Prime Minister" has become tainted by its UK context where the PM (whoever it is)has come to totally dominate cabinet affairs and even determine important policy without consultation (such as when David Cameron walked out of EU negotiations without informing, much less consulting his deputy & coalition partners). the title “First Minister” as at present is preferable to “Prime Minister” because:
1. It reminds us all that the FM is one of a number of ministers; it has echoes of “first among equals”
2. It’s straightfoward, unpretentious
3. We’ve got used to it, it’s become distinctively Scottish!
4. “Prime Minister” has become tainted by its UK context where the PM (whoever it is)has come to totally dominate cabinet affairs and even determine important policy without consultation (such as when David Cameron walked out of EU negotiations without informing, much less consulting his deputy & coalition partners).

]]> Comment on Draft Constitution Now On Line by Elspeth Kane http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=30#comment-375 Elspeth Kane Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:02:59 +0000 http://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=30#comment-375 (24) the oath to be taken by new members of parliament - Would like to see this also containing the option, as given elsewhere, to "affirm" rather than swear, so that people whose religious convictions prevent them swearing oaths (eg Quakers/memmbers of Society of Friends) are accommodated. (24) the oath to be taken by new members of parliament – Would like to see this also containing the option, as given elsewhere, to “affirm” rather than swear, so that people whose religious convictions prevent them swearing oaths (eg Quakers/memmbers of Society of Friends) are accommodated.

]]>