Unfinished business
We don’t make a habit of printing press releases at Wings Over Scotland – in fact if our memory serves us correctly, as it rather intermittently does, we’ve never done so. But we’re going to make a partial exception here by printing half of one.
It’s from a speech given by the First Minister on the occasion of yesterday’s unopposed passing of the Section 30 order by the House of Commons, enshrining the right of the Scottish Parliament to hold the independence referendum. We’ve left out all the stuff about that, though, in favour of the much more interesting matter of the FM’s comments on a written constitution for an independent Scotland. It’s an incredibly important commitment, and we welcome it unreservedly.
We’ll let him take it from there.
—————————————————————————————————
“Following a Yes vote in 2014, the first independent Scottish Parliament will be elected in May 2016. One of the first, most fundamental and exciting tasks of that parliament will be to establish the process for Scotland’s first written constitution through a constitutional convention.
For centuries, Scotland has had a distinct constitutional tradition – first expressed in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, reaffirmed by the 1989 Claim of Right for Scotland, and most recently restated by the Scottish Parliament just one year ago.
That tradition states that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the power to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. It stands in contrast to the UK principle that parliament has unlimited sovereignty.
That UK tradition is one of the reasons that the UK has no written constitution. That makes the UK highly unusual among Western democracies, and unique within the European Union. That deficiency is a democratic deficit that an independent Scotland should not repeat.
We will make it one of the first duties of the parliament of an independent Scotland to establish a convention to draw up that written constitution. And we will return to our older constitutional tradition of the people’s sovereignty, by making sure the people are directly involved in that process.
There are some recent and inspiring examples of constitutional renewal involving citizens as well as politicians. In particular, Iceland is an example of modern technologies being used to harness enthusiasm of citizens as well as politicians in the renewal of their constitution. After wide consultation, its new constitution was approved by the people last October.
Looking further back, the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 brought representatives together from across the country – they set out the values of the new republic with such principled clarity that the document is still revered more than 200 years later.
Scotland’s constitutional convention will provide an opportunity for everyone to express their views. All political parties will be involved, together with the wider public and civic Scotland.
The reason for this is that Scotland’s constitution should enshrine the people’s sovereignty and affirm the values and rights of the people, of the Community of the Realm of Scotland. Since no single party or individual has a monopoly on good ideas; all parties, and all individuals, will be encouraged to contribute.
The current Scottish Government has specific proposals about some of the measures which could be included in a written constitution.
All parties and citizens of Scotland will be encouraged to contribute their views of what should be in Scotland’s first written constitution. I don’t want to be prescriptive, because the Scottish Government is just one voice in the process, but nevertheless it is useful to have examples for illustration.
It is important to remember that the devolved Scottish Parliament already has embedded in it the European Convention on Human Rights, and these kinds of safeguards will continue to be built in to the parliament of an independent Scotland. However what I have in mind are constitutional provisions that go beyond those touchstone rights to embrace fundamental human concerns, the key economic, social and environmental needs of every citizen and the responsibilities of state and citizen towards each other.
I want to outline just three examples today, to highlight some of the issues the Constitutional Convention could consider.
At the moment, the UK Government’s austerity measures and welfare cuts are raising questions about how people’s rights to vital social services can be protected. In Scotland we have a policy of the right to free education in keeping with our history as the nation which pioneered universal education. We also have homelessness legislation which is proving effective by granting rights to people who are made involuntarily homeless. There is an argument for embedding those provisions as constitutional rights.
A second issue which the constitution could examine could include the future of Trident. Scotland is currently the home of Western Europe’s largest concentration of weapons of mass destruction. They are based on the River Clyde, within 30 miles of Scotland’s largest city. A constitutional ban on the possession of nuclear weapons would end that obscenity.
And thirdly, is the issue of the use of our armed forces and what constitutional safeguards should be established for the use of Scottish troops. This is of great and recent relevance. In 2003, the Westminster Parliament was effectively misled into sanctioning the illegal invasion of Iraq. We should therefore explore what parliamentary and constitutional safeguards should be established for the use of Scottish forces.
I give these three examples, because the Scottish Government is just one part of the process. Other issues we might want to consider include the use of Scotland’s natural resources and the requirement to ensure that economic growth is sustainable, and Scotland’s responsibilities as a member of the international community.
The act of drawing up a constitution will energise and inspire people from all parties and from across civic Scotland. It will be part of a new settlement between the government and the people. It will be a fitting underpinning for a newly independent nation.
It is worth contrasting the vigour of the constitutional debate in Scotland with the current position down the road at Westminster.
In the UK Parliament, the last two years have seen a further failure to reform the House of Lords, after a century of false starts. It seems clear that change to the voting system for the House of Commons is off the agenda for the foreseeable future. And there are deep disagreements, including within the coalition Government, about the value of a separate UK Bill of Rights, which has been a proxy for the wider European debate, as opposed to being seen as an instrument for constitutional renewal or the protection of the liberties of citizens.
After independence, Scotland will move away from the outdated and profoundly undemocratic Westminster system, which in addition regularly delivers governments with no popular mandate in Scotland.
In an independent Scotland we will move instead to a more transparent, democratic and effective system of government – one designed by the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland.
In doing so, we will make Scotland’s constitution an early signal of how the people of Scotland will use the powers of independence – to take our place as a good global citizen, to protect and affirm the values we hold dear, and to create a fairer and more prosperous nation.
That is a key part of the ‘why’ for independence for Scotland.”
Very good article by Salmond.
I give it two days before the MSM and ToryLabLibs spin this as democracy by dictat.
It’s a very interesting thing to think about and I think I’d agree with the free education line, but the paragraph that stood out for me was:
“An independent Scotland would not make changes to policy in reserved areas until after those elections in 2016. Until the transfer of sovereignty takes place, we will not have the power to do so. Essentially, nothing will change, in reserved areas, until and unless a newly elected independent Scottish Parliament begins its work, and chooses to change them.”
Is it possible that, after a Yes vote and in the run-up to 2016, an opposing party could just say “we’re not going to change a thing”? If they’re so happy with the status quo, would one of the parties risk just saying they’d keep everything as is as much as possible if they got elected?
I know I’ve not really thought this through.
“Following a Yes vote in 2014, the first independent Scottish Parliament will be elected in May 2016. One of the first, most fundamental and exciting tasks of that parliament will be to establish the process for Scotland’s first written constitution through a constitutional convention.”
There was a Labour person, probably from south of the border, on the Guardian CiF yesterday claiming Scotland wouldn’t be free until at least 2025. I think they assumed the negotiations would take a long time. Their smug conclusion seemed to be that Labour would cruise the next GE. He or she seemed to think Labour was safe from losing their Scottish seats for the foreseeable future. I went to correct their timeline, and then thought, why bother? Nevertheless, if people don’t understand that it wouldn’t take too long, then they might be in for a hell of a shock. This is, of course, predicated on a yes vote, which is not guaranteed. But on the off chance Scotland votes yes, sooner or later they are going to have to wake up to reality or lose a chance to discuss their own future.
Apart from the joy of seeing this sort of commitment coming from the First Minister of Scotland (the substance of which makes the very notion of Scotland being a “dictatorship” utterly, utterly absurd), I think this covers a couple of important points that have been raised by some independence supporters – namely the monarchy and the timing of the constitutional convention.
As Salmond says in a bit in the first part of the speech: “An independent Scotland would not make changes to policy in reserved areas until after those elections in 2016. Until the transfer of sovereignty takes place, we will not have the power to do so. Essentially, nothing will change, in reserved areas, until and unless a newly elected independent Scottish Parliament begins its work, and chooses to change them.”
I think the more radical supporters of independence should take heed of that, because I think it’s pretty reasonable. This is why I, as a republican who favours a Scottish currency and not completely convinced of the case for staying in NATO, have absolutely no problem with Scotland remaining a monarchy, retaining Sterling, and staying in NATO. We all have different visions of the future Scotland, so the fairest starting point is to just take the current situation and take that as Year Zero. From there, we change things as and when we deem necessary, rather than trying to do everything at once.
Every speech or announcement we see like this makes me feel more convinced that independence is guaranteed to happen. How can people fail to be excited by the idea of having a direct say in the foundations of our country? I’m hoping we’ll see Yes Scotland or someone starting a sort of “What would your constitution be?” competition to get people to give their ideas of what it will look like.
The reason people are so turned off by UK politics is the lack of participation they feel. Turn up every 5 years and give the same two parties your vote, then shut up while the winner does exactly what the loser would have done anyway. Getting folk involved makes them feel they have more of a stake in what is happening.
2014 can’t come soon enough for me.
Great speech and an inspiring vision of what Scotland could and should be in the 21st century, building on the distinct historical traditions, and present day experiences, of the people of Scotland.
I predict that the passage of the S30 order at Westminster, accompanied as it was by a tsunami of unionist negativity, disinformation and bile, twinned with the promise of a future written constitution decided by the Scottish people (not by Big Eck, the SNP or the SG) will mark the start of the “real” campaign in the run up to 2014.
The unionist ascendancy and their forces of reaction, defeatism and negativity have no positive message or future for the Scottish people; the task for those of us who are in favour of a progressive, inclusive and egalitarian independent Scotland is to ensure we highlight the paucity of the unionist agenda, and convince undecided voters that independence is the only rational choice.
“I give it two days before the MSM and ToryLabLibs spin this as democracy by dictat.”
Already started on the no pages: “So King Eck the great dictator will be writing SNP policy into a constitution for Scotland then etc, etc”
” I’m hoping we’ll see Yes Scotland or someone starting a sort of “What would your constitution be?” competition”
I might just have a shot at a multi-question poll, since I think I’ve worked out how to get polls into posts rather than just the sidebar now.
This is the sort of development that scots of all persuasion will be interested in. Unfortunately, the MSM know better and they are not going to pay much attention. Correction, they refuse to pay attention, because they still think a no vote in 2014 is inevitable. If AS got half of the coverage by MSM as his many critics, the referendum would already be won. Having said that, the Better Together club are also working very hard to secure a yes vote in 2014, so all is not lost.
Time travel into the future is scientifically possible. Space-time is not even throughout the universe; it is in fact changed by gravity, so that someone further into a gravity well (for instance, living in a valley nearer to the center of Earth) would experience time more slowly than someone living further away from it (say, at the top of a mountain). It is only an engineering challenge, therefore, to create a device in which time passes more slowly on the inside than on the outside. You could theoretically step into a machine, appear to stay inside for only a few moments, but as soon as you are outside you find that you are much farther into the future.
Now watch as Scotland leaves the UK and, with remarkable speed, suddenly skips forward a few hundred years and arrives in the 21st century.
Stu, this is probably not what you’re talking about, but I’m thinking generally in terms of a future independent Scotland. I’m also just on my way out the door, so excuse any mistakes or confusion or being off-topic.
Constitutionally speaking, I’d like to see something in place to block the selling of state/public assets without either a public referendum or a substantial proportion of votes in the parliament, and not just a majority. But in the case of the population it could just be a majority. (This could apply to other things too, obviously, but thinking about Thatcher’s antics, I think we ought to have built in protection.)
I’d also like to see constitutional protection for minorities, including the sick and disabled who seem to be regarded by some as a viable hate target, using arguments reminiscent of National Socialists playing on the idea of how much people cost to support. I’d also like to see an inquiry into the DWP’s conduct and political spin. Lessons need to be learned there, especially when it comes to deliberately misleading the media and the public, though the media were perfectly capable of digging up the truth. But I want any lessons learned to be applied not just to a future Scottish social security department (yes, let’s drop the US terminology), but to other departments too. I’d like to see more transparency in terms of which companies they are engaging with in the background, and lobbying in general.
This might not be possible, but I also think public transport and the rail services should be built into a constitution because of our large areas of low population density. I don’t know if people would think that a reasonable constitutional issue, but I’m thinking in terms of our geography, and our economy and the needs of the population, some of whom are elderly. I’d like to see more rail services into areas where they currently don’t operate.
Not constitutionally, but in terms of future economic planning, I’d like to see more thought put into the use of the Northeast passage, since other EU countries seem to be quietly sending more shipping there, perhaps experimentally. I was reading a while back about how Japan has been looking into becoming a central hub for Asian-European traffic and it cuts off up to forty percent of the journey time. But that’s more a future development with the melting of the ice. Some people on the Guardian CiF and elsewhere like to make out that Scotland is somehow on the fringes of things, but that’s only if you think in terms of the conventional two dimensional world map.
There are other things, but I need to get off the internet for now.
@Ysabelle
I think you’ve made a great start!
Fantastic read there.
It also seems to be a bit of a change in tone from Salmond, ‘we could do this, we could do that’, when I feel we’re a bit more used to the FM and SNP MSPs asserting what we ‘will’ do (not a criticism, just their way of getting people into the way of thinking ‘will’ and ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ re independence in general, as at the end of his speech).
Really open and inclusive there, inviting people to think on something concrete.
I’d also like to see something written in aboutScotland’s resources being owned by and for the people. If there is an oil or renewables boom for example, the people ofScotland, and in particular local communities affected should be involved and be able to gain from those resources, rather than the assumption global corporates will make off like bandits with the lot and off-shore it. There are more ways of achieving that, and an infrastructure owned by and run for, the people than just the old British state industries model.
There is a lot I would like to see happen, but not necessarily in a constitution. Broad principles could be enshrined, but specific policy commitments should be avoided. On the other hand the framework for democracy should be spelled out – how often parliaments will be held, how legislation can be appealed by the public, how the public can initiate changes in the law, how the head of state will be chosen, etc.
Above all, a constitution should be well-written and concise. Early secondary school children should be able to learn it, without it having loopholes lawyers can exploit.
Interesting times!
What I want, above all else, is for the constitution to state that under no circumstances will Scotland EVER AGAIN give away its sovereignty to a parliament in another country.
That doesn’t preclude us from future sovereignty-sharing – such as if we decided to join a Nordic currency union or something like that – as long the sovereignty ultimately lies with our parliament, and by extension, us.
I would also like it to be written down that no person in Scotland is above any other, meaning an end to titles like Lord and Sir. A sort of constitutional version of “I kent his faither”.
I would like to see comprehensive land reform. I know that would take a long time, but I want to see Scotland’s land being farmed by and for the benefit of the people who live on it.
If that’s as a grouse moor or a deer shoot, fair enough, but to paying customers, not abentee landlords swanning up in the summer and patronising the locals who are seen as their servants.
That speech has almost brought a tear to my eye!
This is the country I want to live in.
On an unscientific note, a poll of colleagues from places like Airdrie, Renfrew, Cumbernauld, Falkirk suggests that 95% of them, they’re family & friends are in total support of independence. The other 5% were unsure and mostly needed further clarification on defence of all things?
This spurs me on even more to put every ounce of effort I have into making it happen.
Ysabelle:
That’s a good start.
With respect to the transport aspect, I’d like to see a more coordinated effort towards the ferry system and possibly bridges between some of the smaller islands, as per the Norwegian model.
Cath:
I agree about communities benefiting more from resources and I think that we should all benefit from cheaper power and fuel.
Another thing that I have long thought about, particularly since the cases of tax avoidance by Starbucks etc, is that companies should pay a local income tax. It needn’t be a huge amount and it would demonstrate a commitment to the local community. For example, Amazon at Dunfermline could pay a percentage of profits to Fife which could be spent say on sports facilities for the community.
These are all positive ideas which we could explore in a newly independent Scotland.
Its an exciting time and just a tragedy that the MSM and Westminster are trashing Scotland at every opportunity.
@Doug Daniel
I would also like it to be written down that no person in Scotland is above any other, meaning an end to titles like Lord and Sir.
The equal rights of all citizens should be enshrined in and should underpin our Constitution. No person and no institution should be above the law and all lawmakers should be subject to election. The principle of equality is crucial within a democracy that values and upholds the common weal. It’s completely unacceptable, that within the current UK political arrangement, some are clearly perceived as and allowed to be more equal than others.
Here is a good opportunity to feed some positive thinking into the YES campaign…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21008959
Its an offer to ask Blair Jenkins some questions.
My contribution is to have it written into the constitution that no private enterprise or state owned entity can profiteer from essential living expenses such as gas, electricity, water etc.
This would take shape in a cap on the amount of profit they can make. For instance, they can not charge the people anymore than say 5% of the total cost to supply the service. This can then be scrutinised annualy by the government.
This will ensure that energy poverty is driven down and every man, woman & child will never again be held to ransom on things they cannot survive without.
Picking up the discussion again….
I absolutely agree with the land reform issue.
Also, the constitution should definitely establish that we are all equal.
I’m a republican, so I’d be happy to see the end of the monarchy, however the current incumbent is elderly and I don’t have a problem continuing with the current set up for as long as she’s alive, though she could reach 100 like her mother!
I wonder if a future Scotland should use referenda more, so that the people vote on important issues. I know some people are wary of this. Certainly, there are times when parliaments lead, particularly on human rights issues.
The Icelandic six question constitutional referendum (from Wikipedia):
1. Do you wish the Constitution Council’s proposals to form the basis of a new draft Constitution?
2. In the new Constitution, do you want natural resources that are not privately owned to be declared national property?
3. Would you like to see provisions in the new Constitution on an established (national) church in Iceland?
4. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorising the election of particular individuals to the Althingi more than is the case at present?
5. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution giving equal weight to votes cast in all parts of the country?
6. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution stating that a certain proportion of the electorate is able to demand that issues are put to a referendum?
All six questions received a yes vote.
What badly needs to be enshrined in Scotland’s proposed constitution is a prohibition on the infringement of free expression. Scotland, the UK, and the EU have already gone far to far in curtailing the right of the individual to express their views without sanction and fear of government reprisal.
It is not for government to determine what is in good taste and what is offensive speech. Giving offense to others or others taking offense should not be a matter for the state.
We have ample cases where these laws prohibiting offensive speech have been abused – lounge singer in the Isle of Wight being arrested and cautioned for performing the song, “(Everybody was) Kung Fu Fighting”, which apparently offended a passing citizen of Chinese extraction.
Or the cases precipitating current imminent change in the law which allowed the conviction of a student for calling a police horse “gay”, or worse, where another young man said “whoof!” to a police dog and was subsequently convicted under the same cretinous statute.
Or indeed, the invasion of the home and the arrest of those who posted off-colour to despicable remarks about the murder of two young police women. Whilst their behavior is to be condemned, it should not invite nor enable police use of the coercive power of the state to silence the miscreants or take revenge upon them.
In Scotland, the displaying of a flag or the singing of a song, or a gesticulation, at a sporting event, should not be grounds for arrest and imprisonment. There are sufficient remedies in law for offenses against public order if subsequent disturbances of the peace occur. In a free society citizens have the right to be offensive. Giving offense should not per se, be a crime.
We are close to or have reached the point where blasphemy is re-established as a crime. Offending someone’s religious sensibilities should not warrant government punishment.
Whilst there may be good arguments in favour of curtailing certain racist forms of speech, there is no excuse for criminalizing heat-of-the-moment statements like, “Go back to Spain!”, or “Go back where you came from!”, or overheard expressions of personal prejudice not directed at the offended person.
The uneven enforcement of such laws based on ethnicity is in itself a greater problem for it signals innate societal and government prejudices. There are many racial epithets hurled at Scots and tolerated by online fora that, were they directed at any other racial or ethnic minority, would result in immediate sanction by the host forum and trigger prosecution by the state.
For instance, most of us are aware of the many crayoned statements of encouragement by patrons of the Telegraph and Daily Mail, which in their mildest form suggest we degenerate Scots scroungers should eat our fried Mars Bars, drink our Buckfast, STFU, and get the frak out.
‘
Well I understand why Salmond did not say so, but it is less of a UK tradition to have sovereignty in Parliament, it is very much an English tradition. In its most recent form, the doctrine of “the King in Parliament”, it dates from the 17th century as a particularly English settlement.
It is all the more curious then that after the Union, the English system became totally adopted and the Scottish system vanished.
It’s great to hear Salmond talking seriously about the Scottish system again. I am looking forward to this constitutional discussion spreading and growing across the country!
And thirdly, is the issue of the use of our armed forces and what constitutional safeguards should be established for the use of Scottish troops. This is of great and recent relevance. In 2003, the Westminster Parliament was effectively misled into sanctioning the illegal invasion of Iraq. We should therefore explore what parliamentary and constitutional safeguards should be established for the use of Scottish
Article 9 of the Japanese constitution: “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”
Something along those lines would be nice and would make a bold statement to the world over the distance a modern independent Scotland would like to make between itself and the UK’s imperial past (for which some Scots were personally culpable).
The suggestions here in the comments range from the daft to the sublime but the key point, and an argument I’ve put forth for several years is that the idea of a written constitution and the excitement generated from the prospect of one crafted in Scotland by Scots for Scots is the most powerful argument of all in favor of independence. Be they daft or sublime they will be our choices. It underlines the inadequacies of the “British” State and highlights how we will be Better Apart. This is just the announcement I’ve been hoping for.
I’d like to see the minimum wage scrapped and the right to a ‘living wage’ enshrined in our constitution.
I too would also like to see land reform and something done about absentee landlords owning huge swathes of Scotland.
Something should be written into the constitution that limits the amount of foreign ownership of the press and TV. Further, limits should be set on the amount any one person/group/business/government can spend on advertising in these institutions.
Perhaps a framework set out that would allow for an agreed figure on a petition that would automatically trigger a referendum on that matter. Or at least some sort of framework that allows access for the general public to participate more readily in referenda as opposed to a 4-5 year general election.
The right to free speech and the means to access better freedom of information.
A nuclear free Scotland – FOREVER!
Public control of essential services like electricity, water, transport.
Whatever we finally decide on _ I’d love to see that these rights applied to everyone regardless of race, creed, colour or sexuality.
This piece prompted me to look up my independent country’s constitution. The last time they majorly changed it, they sent the constitution into every household in the country: a thin booklet, which I appear to have mislaid.
The constitution is of course available online, in the official Finnish and Swedish and in several unofficial (but Department of Justice approved) translations, including English http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf .
I think the English translation is horrible. Clumsy, long-winded, contorted legalese. The original Finnish is very straightforward, simple but accurate language, designed to be accesible to everybody, to involve the people.
And I have to say, I love how our constitution starts: Finland is a sovereign republic.
That really says it all. All else follows.
Is it asking too much if we can have “Public Flogging” of MP’s who shamefully lie and denigrate the memories of fellow Scots who fought and died for Scotland’s freedom?
If the sovereign rights of the Scottish people are to be enshrined in a written constitution, it is only to be expected that an independent Scotland would represent a “New Jerusalem”, more in keeping with William Blake’s own hatred of imperial aggression and rampant capitalism?
I think this is what is really baking the noodles of the British establishment. No ….. not the prospect of Scottish independence providing the “final nail” to the British empire, as an engine of economic exploitation (both domestic and global). They’re feart of loosing their favorite song at Twickers.
As to an explanation of the motives driving our so-called elected “representative” who support the union, I have none. Must be the ermine, its human nature.
@Keef
Is it asking too much if we can have “Public Flogging” of MP’s who shamefully lie and denigrate the memories of fellow Scots who fought and died for Scotland’s freedom?
Ah, but Keef, those were the wrong kind of Scots. Those were ScotNatScots and not BritNatScots. Pre-union Scottish history doesn`t count; so it is okay to mock and denegrate it…well, at least if you are a unionist it seems.
@ Keef
“Public control of essential services like electricity, water, transport.”
Steady on there, your talking like a revolutionary. How dare you contradict Baroness Thatcher, who was of course correct in her desire to privatise democratically accountable local services? I suppose you will be bleating for the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights next?
@ Cameron
And if Thatcher still has the reciepts – I’d be claiming the money back that she robbed by selling assets that were built/run and kept solvent by the TAX PAYER’S money.
As a final act of defience, I’d make the first entry on the constitution – The immediate re-instatement of free milk to underpriviledged primary school kids. 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂
Salmond’s speech is EXACTLY what I’ve been waiting for, now I’ve read it rather than reported bits of it in the MSM. It separates the SNP from Independence and the Constitution, and should also be used as the start of separation from the YES campaign, by which I mean they’re part of it, but not it.
It is also an answer to just about everything the NO campaign have hurtled at tthe SNP over the last 12 months, and in addition, has the effect of having lured them into a trap of their own making.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/constitution-rights-16-01-2013
“An independent Scotland would not make changes to policy in reserved areas until after those elections in 2016. Until the transfer of sovereignty takes place, we will not have the power to do so. Essentially, nothing will change, in reserved areas, until and unless a newly elected independent Scottish Parliament begins its work, and chooses to change them.”
“We will make it one of the first duties of the parliament of an independent Scotland to establish a convention to draw up that written constitution. And we will return to our older constitutional tradition of the people’s sovereignty, by making sure the people are directly involved in that process.”
“Scotland’s constitutional convention will provide an opportunity for everyone to express their views. All political parties will be involved, together with the wider public and civic Scotland.”
Salmond and the SNP are no longer Independence, nor are they the Constitution, nor are they the neccessarily the policy makers of that Independent Scotland – they might be, or Labour might be …
I wonder how long Salmond has had this up his sleeve?
Sorry, me again. I just noticed this from Salmond’s speech:
“Today is an appropriate date for Westminster to finish its deliberations. It was on the 16th of January in 1707, that the old Scots Parliament voted to ratify the Treaty of Union.”
Thanks for the article and link Rev, I don’t think I’ve been so excited since the Edinburgh Agreement was signed!
Well, managing to wangle seized rear axle out and reconditioned one into one son’s Saxo VTR, without disconnecting or ripping the brake pipes or hoses counts for something, I guess. Now, I’m back to work with a will. It could be a good year.
@dadsarmy:
“I wonder how long Salmond has had this up his sleeve?”
Oh I’d say it’s been there a good long while. Though given this is pretty much exactly what most of us who’ve been following the campaign closely have been saying all along, it wasn’t exactly concealed. Hidden in plain sight, more like.
Much more like it dads. 🙂
The two blogs from the FM and Nicola.
Off and running.