I AGREE with Alan Hind (Long Letter, May 21) that a public discussion on a written constitution for an independent Scotland needs to start now. John Drummond’s series of well-reasoned articles in the Sunday National are providing a rational case for a written constitution prior to voting for independence.
On the other hand, Brexit has demonstrated the undemocratic mess that occurs where there is no written constitution setting out the powers and limitations of government. For politicians, party policies all too often take precedence over the general needs of the public, and again all too often candidates make promises to obtain our votes then conveniently forget them once elected.
The Conservative party is well entrenched with the chain of power – land-money-wealth-power-manipulate. Politicians do not freely give power held away.
At present the politicians at Holyrood make the rules that they operate by, and if we wait until after independence they will write a constitution that will favour those in power rather then the general public.
Money is the current power base of the nation, primarily controlled by commercial banks providing debt rather than by a government providing free credit for infrastructure (like the Atlee government achieved between 1955 to 1961).
A constitution should empower the government to be the sole supplier of domestic currency and credit without incurring debt. Mervyn King appears to have started to identify the flaws in the current neo-liberal ideology. Yet how many politicians understand how the money system actually works?
Alan Hind makes the point that the constitution should include a Bill of Rights and that we need more equality by a new form of economics together with a system that taps into the underutilised creativity and innovative abilities of the general populace.
Several years ago under the mentorship of John Drummond’s team, the Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies produced a model to guide a public discussion on a written constitution. The model includes a Bill of Rights, rules for government institutions, and proposals for the efficient financing of national and local government and well as other issues that need to be debated and agreed before a referendum vote. A demonstration system for a public debate is available at: ronnimor.wixsite.com/website-1
The specification for a secure website for the public debate is thus available but there has been a lack of interest from academics and technical bodies due partially to the cost of providing voting security on the website.
Now is the time for you to get involved in an open and rational debate to replace our broken system and create a genuine participatory democracy. Your children and those who come after need you to act now.
Bob Ingram
Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies
SURELY the reason politicians walk on independence marches as ordinary people is to show the whole of Scotland that the Yes movement is not politician-led. It is numerous, wide, diverse, and is made up of ordinary people who live in Scotland, who are making a huge effort to show the world that independence is very important to them.
Yes groups the length and breadth of Scotland are organising, marching, leafleting, funding Yes hubs and conducting street stalls That demonstrates the strength, energy and passion of the Yes movement and is one of its most important characteristics.
What better than to let the ordinary folk of Scotland show their strength and determination for independence for Scotland by organising and attending marches, with politicians taking very much a back seat. That surely sends a very powerful message.
D&G English Scots for Yes were delighted to bump into Brendan O’Hara MP who we had never met before, at the very tail of the Glasgow AUOB march. We met him purely because a fellow marcher pointed him out. He was attracting absolutely no attention to himself and few on the march, or the general public, would have realised he was present.
Well done to all the politicians who attend marches in a similar fashion and, unlike one or two Scottish politicians, avoid publicity and photocalls.
John Schofield
D&G English Scots for Yes
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here