AMENDMENTS
|
 | Article 1: Section 12 Guardianship wards also deserve a vote |
| original wording |
| Citizens, resident, and on the electoral register, are entitled to vote in all national elections and referendums upon reaching the Age of Legal Capacity, except for persons under guardianship due to severe mental incapacity as defined by a specific medical or judicial certification. |
| proposed amendment |
| Citizens, resident, and on the electoral register, are entitled to vote in all national elections and referendums, except for persons excluded by law. |
| comments 1 (comment on amendment) |
| This section contains two things to which I oppose: 1/ 'the Age of Legal Capacity’ as minimum age for entitlement to vote (see section 4.9) and 2/ the exclusion of 'persons under guardianship due to severe mental incapacity' as this is an unwarranted discrimination. It is an entitlement of all citizens in a democracy to have their interests looked after by an elected representative. Citizenship rights cannot be taken away for reasons of guardianship. Persons with similar mental incapacities have different chances of being placed under guardianship depending on their social and family circumstances (see for more in https://www.drwillem.org/constitution). |
| comments 2 (reaction to Arfem's comment) |
| Section 1.12. Being on the Register alone, I think, is not a sufficient reason for the right to vote. This right should be reserved for persons who are on the Electoral Register and who are legal Residents of Scotland. It is much more logical for expatriates to vote for the political institutions in their country of residence. |
| further remarks |
Mental incapacity is an impairment. Discrimination on this ground is against section 2.3. The guardianship as reason for the exclusion is unfair when the chance of being placed under guardianship very likely depends on family and other circumstances that are irrespective of the incapacity. It would be much more logical to give the vote of the person under guardianship to the guardian who then can vote as proxy and then cast the vote in the interest of the ward. The right to vote is sacrosanct in a democracy and to exclude someone from it must have a considerably important justification. Mental incapacity is not such a reason. It is a much too difficult concept to define clearly and with most likely different interpretations over time. Citizens with mental incapacities also have interests, such as how to be looked after to lead a dignified life. These interests are best looked after by the persons themselves or by a proxy on their behalf. We shouldn’t shove these people to the side. They also contribute to the society of which they are a constituent member. When we say ‘our’ society then that includes them. Because of their special circumstances they require special care by special professionals who with this have a rewarding and respectable job. The presence of a substantial number of members of a society who are professional carers, has a significant influence on the society as a whole.
All persons are entitled to a vote. All means all. Only very special reasons can be seen as a justification to withhold or take away this right. |
|
| Article 4: Section 9 Voting rights from birth on |
| original wording |
| All Scottish citizens will be automatically entered onto the electoral register on
attaining the Age of Legal Capacity and will retain registration for life. All registered
Scottish citizens are entitled to vote in the Parliamentary elections and National
referendums. |
| proposed amendment |
| Section 4.9. All Scottish citizens will be automatically entered onto the electoral register on birth registration and will retain registration for life. All registered Scottish citizens are entitled to vote in the Local Government elections in their constituency of residence, the Parliamentary elections, and National referendums. |
| comments |
It is unclear what the connection is between voting and the age of legal capacity. The former is a right where the latter is a recognition. This age has changed over time and with that the minimum voting age. It suggests a simultaneously gaining capacity to vote and to act legally. The minimum voting age can be determined separately but I would like to suggest having this from birth on. It gives the young citizens a sense of belonging from very early on, but there are many more reasons to have a complete suffrage.
(see for more in https://www.drwillem.org/constitution) |
| further remarks |
The right to have a say in how one is governed, gives expression to the right to have one’s interests looked after by the representative of one's own choice. There is a lot to say about this. The democratic right to vote for a representative has developed over time from a very few to all of us except for the young persons. They seem to have been overlooked in the advancing process of extending the suffrage. It is time to proceed to a complete suffrage including all citizens and legal residents. The possibility of Scottish Independence is an excellent opportunity to settle this in the Constitution. But until then it could well be Scotland to be the first country in the world to abolish the minimum voting age and to include all ages in the suffrage.
Scroll down this page or use this link to read more about it.
|
|
COMMENTS
|
| Article 1: Section 1 |
| original wording |
| We, the people of the free sovereign and inalienable nation of Scotland do hereby express and enact our collective will through this written Constitution. |
| comments |
| Section 1.1 is an excellent preamble of the Constitution and doesn't require alteration or addition. |
| further remarks |
| The statement is succinctly and spot on setting the tone of a confident nation capable of managing its own affairs. |
|
| Article 1: Section 6 |
| original wording |
| Citizenship: All persons, including adopted children, who were UK citizens immediately prior to independence, and were born in Scotland, or were legally resident in Scotland at independence, will become citizens of Scotland. |
| comments |
Section 1.6. I can fully agree with section 1.6 as long as it is to be read to including the non-UK citizens that are legally resident in Scotland at independence.
Such a citizenship should only be granted on application and then with simultaneously abandoning the UK or non-UK citizenship. |
| further remarks |
| A more clear and unambiguous wording would have been: "All persons who were legally resident in Scotland immediately prior to independence will become citizens of Scotland". |
|
| Article 2: Section 3 |
| original wording |
| The rights and freedoms set forth in this Constitution are enjoyed without
discrimination on grounds of age, sex, race, colour, disability, impairment, language,
culture, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status. |
| comments |
This section contradicts itself on one ground. The citizens below the age of legal capacity are excluded from the right to vote (see also section 4.9).
I agree with DavidGreenlees’s simplification, but sometimes it can be important to specifically stipulate the different grounds of discrimination.
|
|
| Article 2: Section 16 |
| original wording |
| All citizens have the right to be treated with dignity, and to participate in society
as full and equal members, and to have barriers to such participation removed. |
| comments |
| Dignity implies food, shelter, income. Maybe in some future dignity would also imply other things, which then would not be in the Constitution. I therefore voted in favour of the Original Version. |
|
| Article 2: Section 19 |
| original wording |
| All citizens are equal before the law and have the right to equal benefit of the
law. |
| comments |
All citizens are equal before the law, but some are a bit less equal. Citizens under the age of legal capacity do not have the right to vote (see also section 4.9).
Also, NSCNICK is right, but I do not think the Original Version needs to be changed for that.
|
|
| Article 4: Section 1 |
| original wording |
| Subject to the rights of the People, the supreme legislative power is entrusted to
a unicameral Parliament. |
| comments |
| With this Scotland would be an exception among like-minded democratic countries that all have two chambers. There are many different options imaginable. A bicameral Parliament would give more stability in the Legislature with, for instance, an extra chamber that has the power to reject proposed bills for reasons of being in violation with the Constitution. The extra chamber could be elected by five regions (Highlands and Islands, Lowlands, Central Scotland, Caledonia and Lothian, all with similar population numbers), each with 12 representatives by proportional representation. (see for more https://www.drwillem.org/constitution) |
| further remarks |
| For more about a Two-Chamber Parliament, scroll down this page or use this link to read more about it |
|
| Article 4: Section 4 |
| original wording |
| Parliament will sit for a statutory period of five years and will be supported by a Civil Service. |
| comments |
| To avoid confusion, and with that an endless discussion, it may be a suggestion to stipulate: “. . . . a statutory period of five years or so much less as a prior dissolution will determine, and will be . . . .†|
|
| Article 4: Section 8 |
| original wording |
| The general elections take place during the first week in May with the rules for campaign expenditure for parliamentary candidates being set by law. |
| comments |
| ‘First week in May’ does not need to be mentioned. 'Elections to be held within thirty days following dissolution' would suffice. Otherwise, it could give rise to discussions that the rules for campaign expenditure were not applicable if the elections were not in May, such as after a premature dissolution. |
|
| Article 4: Section 10 |
| original wording |
| All persons, with a minimum of five years’ work experience out with 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. |
| comments |
| 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) |
| further remarks |
| The Parliament is the institution that embodies the People, and the members form its mirror image or so they should. The age of legal capacity seems to be an acceptable minimum age to ensure a reasonable cognitive development and because we all may one day reach this age. To exclude well proven criminals to stand, also seems to be justified to prevent them continuing their career using the seat, but is it justified for all kinds of crime? But to exclude people without a minimum work experience, is straightforward discrimination and it is rather patronising. A substantial number of people have not been able to gain work experience for perfectly acceptable reasons. It may be too early following their education, it may be they had other obligations such as caring for a relative, it may be a medical condition making at difficult finding a job. There certainly are more reasons for not having a work experience but still having the life experience and wisdom. Many of us would be happy to be represented by one of them because they identify with them. The only acceptable reason to refuse someone to stand for Parliament is the expectation of damaging the institution. |
|
| Article 4: Section 21 |
| original wording |
| All Members of Parliament will be allowed freedom to vote free from intimidation
from others. It is the responsibility of the Elected Members to ensure that the majority
view of their constituents is prioritised over all other personal or political party
considerations. |
| comments |
| This can cause substantial political and social difficulties. What if the majority is 51%? This would mean the view of 49% to be dismissed. And what if the majority view favours capital punishment? I’m not sure if this responsibility in this way described, does not cause more problems than it intends to prevent. |
|
| Article 5: Section 10 |
| original wording |
| Parliament will appoint committees to inspect and oversee the Government and
to scrutinise specific legislation. They will consist of at least seven members, chosen
by parliamentary vote, by proportional representation of political groups. |
| comments |
| This could be a task for the extra chamber (see section 4.1) |
|
| Article 5: Section 12 |
| original wording |
| Members of Parliament holding a ministerial office will, by virtue of that office,
be disqualified from membership of all select committees and from Parliament’s
Corporate Body. They may serve on Parliamentary Commissions and Boards of
Enquiry only where there is no conflict of interest. |
| comments |
| 'MPs who are ministerial office bearers' conflicts with the separation of powers, which is considered a cornerstone of democratic government. (see for more in https://www.drwillem.org/constitution) |
| further remarks |
| Use this link or look down this page to read more about the Separation of Powers. |
|
| Article 5: Section 14 |
| original wording |
| The non-government aligned Members of Parliament may elect a member who
will be designated by the Presiding Officer as the Leader of the Opposition. |
| comments |
| This idea very much is the inheritance of a biparty Parliament and a reminiscence of the Westminster model of Parliament. Principally, all MPs have the democratic duty to scrutinise the Government. (see also section 5.12) |
|
| Article 5: Section 16 |
| original wording |
| Parliament will have the authority to initiate a vote of no confidence in an
individual Minister, the Scottish Government as a whole, or an individual Member of
Parliament. The Parliamentary Bureau will have the authority to discipline the
offender/s. |
| comments |
| A vote of no confidence against the Government is a political one, against an MP it is against the Electorate who voted for the MP. Removing an MP for political reasons is a competence that belongs to the constituency electorate.
The Parliamentary Bureau will only have the authority to discipline an offender in case of violation against its rules (misconduct in office).
|
|
| Article 5: Section 17 (extra after section 5.16 slot) |
| wording by sdonald01 |
| All members of parliament, shall have their voting records published annually, based on parliamentary sessions. All parliamentary members, shall be allowed to vote individually. If the vote is “whipped†this should be noted in the record.
The parties shall provide at time of voting in the legislature, whether the vote is freely given, or whether the vote was “whipped†by their party. This shall also be published annually, based on Parlimentary sessions. |
| comments |
| A Member of Parliament is ultimately accountable to his/her constituency. Party loyalty may play a role in deciding how to vote, but this should always be cast in freedom, sometimes with the risk of losing the whip. (see section 6) |
| further remarks |
| MPs are personally elected and are only accountable to the electorate. Of course, they often are candidates representing the political ideas of a political party but they are not only representing that party. The MP is there to promote the interests of the whole constituency. If that conflicts with party policy, then the electorate takes precedence (see section 4.21). Scotland’s interest is that of its people, not of a political party or any other group that does not represent the whole of the population. Taking the whip away from dissenting members may well backfire on a party. The whole whip-concept is very Westminsterish. |
|
| Article 7: Section 5 |
| original wording |
| Cabinet Secretaries and Law Officers will be appointed by the First Minister. All
other Ministers will be nominated by Members of Parliament and voted in by a simple
majority vote of Parliament. |
| comments |
| I agree with Bannachie. Also, will it be possible for the Parliament to appoint nominated ministers who are not MPs? This would help with the separation of powers. |
|
| Article 7: Section 11 |
| original wording |
| Non-government organisations will operate under the direct authority of the
office of the responsible Cabinet Secretary. |
| comments |
| This would make these NGOs indirectly governmental. |
|
| Article 10: Section 1 |
| original wording |
| Amendments to the Constitution will require a two-thirds majority vote in
parliament followed by a public referendum. |
| comments |
| An alternative could be: “Amendments to the Constitution will require a two-thirds majority vote in parliament followed by a common majority in a newly elected Parliamentâ€. This form of indirect referendum may prevent populistic referendum campaigns. |
| further remarks |
| Constitutional Amendments reflect important changes to a political constellation and require the utmost dedication of all those who are involved in it. A wider support than a common majority can be part of that, such as a two-thirds majority in Parliament. A subsequent Referendum with a common majority can be very divisive, as recent UK-history has shown. Referendum campaigns can easily be hijacked by organisations with undemocratic motives. A referendum-tiredness in the population is the unintended result and with that a loss in democratic trust. An alternative for the referendum is to dissolve the Parliament and elect a new one that can pass the amendment with a common majority. In this way the population also has a say by electing the representatives in whom they have confidence. It also shows the Constitution preferably to be general rather than specific to avoid the need for frequent changes. |
|
Constitution for Scotland (this is not a page on the website www.constitutionforscotland.scot).
Democracy for all, an argument for complete suffrage
Separation of Powers
Two-chamber Legislature
That offers a unique opportunity to draw up a document with articles for a new country, highly developed and already with a history of centuries. It is a chance not to just copy the UK example but to take all the other constitutions, constitutional ideas and the specific Scottish situation as sources from which a whole new constitution can arise. Scotland itself already has contributed to this with the Declaration of Arbroath from 6th April 1320. With all this in view and mind a constitution that enshrines freedom, civil rights and duties, social justice and mutual responsibility will be the foundation of a country where its people can thrive. This short essay discusses several building blocks that make a strong constitution such as people and territory, sovereignty, polity, form of government, institutions, civil rights and duties, and with Scotland in mind.
