[patriots] Re: Constitution Conference
- From: annette rose smith <annette-rose-smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx" <johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx>, "patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ECG <ecg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:26:20 +0100
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/constitutional-convention-now
From: johntimbrell@xxxxxxxxxx
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: ecg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Constitution Conference
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 17:43:59 +0000
Patriots, Paul sent me this with my name attached. It needs wider attention.
Please Read the Times Letter and the find the website of the Electoral Reform
Society and sign their petition.
I Believe all the disparate groups with the same aim as ourselves should get
behind this society for this project. The constitution is now in the news.
Please do your bit to keep it there.
John,
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/images/dynamicImages/file5419629152c1f.pdf
With best wishes
Paul
www.force4justice.co.uk
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Sep 2014, at 08:29, ECG <ecg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
good morning patriots,
I'm circulating this for the report by Rupert Read, (third
one down) in which he promotes a peoples conference to
iron out constitutional problems, specifically he calls
for a non elite conference presumably because he does not
trust the politicians and lawyers.
he also mentions an important letter to the times last
week.Does anyone have access to it.
JohnT
WordPress.com
Blog Admin posted: "On 18 September, Scotland
voted against independence by a margin of
55-45 per cent. We asked a number of experts
to comment on the results and what might occur
in future. John Van Reenen: "The economic case
for maintaining the union was overwhelming" "
New post on EUROPP
Experts react to the
Scottish referendum result: The
Nays have it
by Blog Admin
On
18 September,
Scotland voted
against
independence
by a margin of
55-45 per
cent. We asked
a number of
experts to
comment on the
results and
what might
occur in
future.
John
Van Reenen:
"The
economic case
for
maintaining
the union was
overwhelming"
Norman
Bonney: "Clearly
the great
ambitions of
the reconvened
Scottish
Parliament of
1999 to
transform
politics in
Scotland in a
more
participatory
direction have
failed"
Rupert
Read: "The
‘Yes’ campaign
has played a
vital role in
throwing open
questions
about the
support for
our current
constitutional
settlement"
Craig
McAngus: "Although
the Scottish
Question will
remain on the
agenda, the
English
Question has
also been
asked"
John
Van Reenen - Professor
of Economics
and director
of the Centre
for Economic
Performance,
LSE
The
immense
turnout of 85%
is a tribute
to healthy
democracy in
Scotland and
the UK as a
whole. The
Scottish
people were
brave to vote
against
breaking up
the UK. There
was immense
pressure in
the campaign
to make the
vote a
declaration of
identity
rather than of
reason – “You
can only
really be
Scottish if
you vote yes”.
This was
always deeply
offensive and
deeply untrue.
It is possible
and desirable
in the modern
world to have
multiple
identities and
indeed,
civilised
living
requires this.
Gordon Brown’s
speech on the eve of
the vote - at last - made this
into a
passionate
rallying call.
As I
have argued before,
the economic case for maintaining the union
was
overwhelming.
There are now
two major
battles ahead.
The first is
over the
European Union
as the Prime
Minister has
promised a
vote on this
by 2017. This
has even more
risks for the
prosperity of
the UK than
the Scottish
vote. The
economic
arguments in
favour of this
continued
union are also
overwhelming, but the
siren call of barren
nationalism
will again be
amplified by
UKIP and a
great many
narrow minded
politicians.
And the
Scottish
referendum has
shown that
many people
will find this
an attractive
song - for
“distant
Westminster”
read “distant
Brussels”).
The
second battle
will be
constitutional
change. Powers
will go to
Scotland, but
what about the
other
countries of
the UK? What
is clear is
that people
are deeply
unhappy about
over-centralisation
of power in
Westminster.
We need to
consider more
power to the
city-regions
of England and
how to
economically
revitalise
areas outside
of London. The
LSE Growth Commission
has been followed up by a City Growth Commission (I am one of the members). We
will issue our
report next
month calling
for a new
settlement
within England
across its
major
city-regions
to match the
changes now
proposed
between
England and
Scotland.
This is
not the end of
a move to
decentralise
power – it’s
just the
start.
---------------------------------------------------
Norman
Bonney - Emeritus
Professor at
Edinburgh
Napier
University
Clearly
the great
ambitions of
the reconvened
Scottish
Parliament of
1999 to
transform
politics in
Scotland in a
more
participatory
direction have
failed. About
half the
Scottish
electorate do
not believe
that the
current
arrangements
which grant
generous
funding and
extensive
powers of
self-government
over health,
education,
local
government,
transport and
planning etc.
(with more in
the pipeline)
are capable of
delivering
greater
involvement,
more equality
and social
justice. The
Labour Party
has failed to
use the
institutions
it created to
strengthen its
position in
Scotland and
the stature of
its MSPs has
never matched
the challenge
of the SNP. It
has also
conceded the
progressive
campaigning
initiative in
socially
deprived
neighbourhoods
to the
independence
movement and
faces a major
challenge to
retain its
electoral
base.
UK party
leaders seemed
out of touch
when
campaigning in
Scotland.
David Cameron
emphasised the
apparent
weakness of
the Tories in
Scotland by
referring to
the one
Scottish MP.
But
disproportionality
at Westminster
minimises
apparent Tory
support in
Scotland and
he could have
bolstered the
party’s status
by mentioning
the 15 Tory
MSPs (12%)
elected under
the
proportional
representation
system as well
as Ruth
Davidson,
their
impressive
leader. The
hidden agenda
of the
establishment
of the
Scottish
Parliament,
elected by
proportional
representation,
was to prevent
a separatist
administration
gaining
control of
Holyrood. But
a low poll in
2011 returned
an SNP
majority
elected by
only 45 per
cent of those
voting but
with a
commitment to
hold a
referendum on
independence.
And in the end
campaigning
may have made
little
difference to
the final
outcome with
separatists
again polling
the same
percentage
share as in
2011.
------------------------------------------------
Rupert
Read
- Reader
in Philosophy
at the
University of
East Anglia
and until
recently a
Green Party
Councillor in
Norwich.
The
‘Yes’ campaign
has played a
vital role in
throwing open
questions
about the
support for
our current
constitutional
settlement –
questions that
will not go
away simply
because of a
narrow defeat
for the 'Yes'
campaign. In
fact, the
questions are
in many cases
more urgent
than they
would have
been, had
Scotland
simply been
going its own
way.
The
debate
triggered by
the referendum
has
illustrated
how people
across the
country have
been left
feeling
unrepresented
and neglected
by Westminster
policies and
politics. It
is clear that
the “business
as usual”
approach to
politics
favoured by
the three
'main' parties
is no longer
resonating
with the
voting
electorate.
There is now a
real
opportunity to
mount a
serious
reassessment
of our
political
system –
including a
debate over
the
introduction
of a written
Constitutional
Convention and
Bill of
Rights. And
this
opportunity is
forced upon
us, by us all
being still in
the same
Kingdom
together.
For the
three largest
parties have
had to commit
themselves to
some version
of 'devo-max',
in the last
few weeks, in
order to stave
off
independence.
So, we must
now have some
version of
devo-max and
that that
means that the
'West Lothian
question', the
question of
what matters
the MP for
West Lothian
etc. can vote
for in
Westminster,
must at last
be properly
addressed -
which requires
a serious
shake-up of
our
constitution
and democratic
arrangements,
in itself.
As Green
MP Caroline
Lucas has
already called for,
it is therefore now high time for a
people's
Constitutional
Convention in
this country.
To settle all
these
questions,
once and for
all, and to
take British
democracy at
last into the
21st
century. The
crisis of a
wide lack of
confidence in
the political
system of the
UK can only be
addressed by a
non-elite
Constitutional
Convention
that involves
ordinary
people in
deciding on
how to reform
the electoral
system, how to
bring in
enhanced
regional and
local
government,
how to
implement a
right of
recall of
elected MPs
who lose their
constituents'
confidence,
and so on. As
a host of fine
relevant
individuals
and
organisations
argued in an
important letter in The Times last week.
We need to get
behind this
campaign,
together.
------------------------------------------------
Craig
McAngus - Research
Fellow at the
University
of Stirling
The
referendum is
over and
Scotland has
voted No.
There is
undoubtedly
huge
disappointment
amongst those
who were
campaigning
for Scotland
to be an
independent
state, and
relief amongst
those who
wanted
Scotland to
stay in the
UK. The
turnout, at
just shy of
85%, is
remarkable and
unprecedented,
and the hope
is that this
democratic
engagement in
politics can
be sustained
moving
forward. We
know that the
pro-UK parties
are committed
to further
devolution for
Scotland and
the three main
parties will
soon begin the
arduous task
of putting
together a
joint position
on what those
powers should
be. The aim is
to have these
proposals in
draft law by
January, and
the clock is
certainly
ticking in
terms of
meeting this
deadline.
Although
the Scottish
Question will
remain on the
agenda, the
English
Question has
also been
asked. At just
after 7am,
David Cameron
made a
statement
outlining
plans for a
sweeping
review of the
relationship
between the
nations of the
UK. Crucially,
he stated that
an answer to
the infamous
West Lothian
Question would
be sought and
the issue of
English Votes
for English
Laws (EVEL)
would be
examined.
Reports in the
media suggest
that he was
under pressure
from a number
of MP's who
insisted that
the issue be
visited in
return for
allowing the
Barnett
Formula to
remain an, as
yet,
unquestioned
feature of
territorial
politics in
the UK. John
Redwood, a
long-time
advocate of
EVEL, was
interviewed on
BBC News this
morning
suggesting
that, in his
view, there
ought to be
days when The
Commons
focuses on
English
legislation
only. This is
obviously
problematic in
that if Labour
were reliant
on their
Scottish MP's
for a
majority, or
even to exist
as the largest
party, then
they would be
outnumbered by
the opposition
on these
English-only
days. However,
there is
political
capital in
dealing with
this question
given that
recent
research has
shown that the
English are
not exactly
pleased at the
perceived
over-funding
of Scotland.
UKIP have also
sniffed an
opportunity to
exploit this,
and so Cameron
is now using
the
constitution
as part of his
campaign in
the run-up to
the UK General
Election. In
the longer
term, there is
no doubt that
a can of worms
has been
opened here
and so, in a
somewhat
ironic way,
the search for
a Scottish
Answer has
subsequently
asked the
English, and
the wider
British,
Question.
Please read our
comments policy before commenting.
Note:
This article
is provided by
our sister
site, British
Politics and Policy at LSE, and gives the
views of
the authors,
and not the
position of
EUROPP –
European
Politics and
Policy, nor of
the London
School of
Economics.
Featured image
credit: Joel Suss CC
BY 2.0
Shortened
URL for this
post:
http://bit.ly/1BVAga2
Blog Admin |
September 20, 2014 at 8:00 am
| Tags: indyref |
Categories: featured | URL: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/?p=29284
Comment
See all comments
Unsubscribe
to no longer receive
posts from EUROPP.
Change your email
settings at Manage
Subscriptions.
Trouble
clicking?
Copy and paste this
URL into your
browser:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/09/20/experts-react-to-the-scottish-referendum-result-the-nays-have-it/
Other related posts:
