Monarchy and an Independent Scotland

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Haven't even got independence yet and the infighting between the Sean Connery and Lorraine Kelly presidential camps is already underway. 

 

Tax dodging Sun columnist or tax dodging wife beater?

It's a toughie.

[Dunfermline Don]

She's a Tory M8

Just what we would need to help ‘heal’ the country then!
An Independent Scotland will be home to all opinions. We would just not have them imposed on us from Westminster as we do now.

[NotThePars]

1 hour ago, Dunfermline Don said:

Just what we would need to help ‘heal’ the country then!
An Independent Scotland will be home to all opinions. We would just not have them imposed on us from Westminster as we do now.

 

Would you like to be deported or have your benefits sanctioned from Holyrood or Westminster? Sounds great!

[Dunfermline Don]

 
Would you like to be deported or have your benefits sanctioned from Holyrood or Westminster? Sounds great!

Come the day we are independent there will still be Tories in Scotland(unless they all move down south). I just don’t expect that they will be in power,unlike now when they are despite how the Scottish electorate has voted.

[Wee-Bey]

She would by my choice for President of a Scottish republic. Imagine her getting the despots telt.

[The_Kincardine]

On 11/08/2019 at 22:02, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I wouldn't worry too much over any of this, as the game will change dramatically when Brenda bites the dust.

There are millions of royalists with a small 'r' in the UK who admire her sense of duty and continuity but who will not transfer their interest never mind their respect to her weedy son. Charles has waited a long time for his starring role but he might well be left wondering if it was worth it. Too fucking bad.

Lots of sense in this post.  Despite being a Rangers-supporting, Tory-voting, Union-backing, Scottish Protestant I see little value in an hereditary monarchy.  You'd certainly not design a state/nation/country to be governed in this way.

This is a big opportunity for The Natters.  They have time between now and any future poll to put together a first draft of a constitution for New Scotland and it would surely swing the balance in their favour if they did so.  A big problem with the last vote was uncertainty over various things - and the ScotNats outlining a constitution would sure allay some fears. 

I'll add it to my list of things to present to the electorate prior to Indyref2:

• The rUK divorce plan with timescales
• The New Scotland EU accession plan with timescales
• A first draft of New Scotland's constitution

Yeah it does require work but 'Rome wasn't built in a day' and what the electorate will want, post-Brexit, is a sensible road map.

[Lurkst]

5 hours ago, Dunfermline Don said:

Judy Murray would be the ideal first President. We could make it a hereditary position but have a tennis match to decide which son succeeds her!

Surely Andy would be succeeded higher?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Richard Finlay would be great. Still remember him causing a meltdown in my Scottish History class when he said the idea “unionist nationalism” was a crock of shit.

Richard kens the score. Always dishing out telts to the yoons even when I was a lad in 2005.

[SandyCromarty]

On 13/08/2019 at 19:29, The_Kincardine said:

Lots of sense in this post.  Despite being a Rangers-supporting, Tory-voting, Union-backing, Scottish Protestant I see little value in an hereditary monarchy.  You'd certainly not design a state/nation/country to be governed in this way.

This is a big opportunity for The Natters.  They have time between now and any future poll to put together a first draft of a constitution for New Scotland and it would surely swing the balance in their favour if they did so.  A big problem with the last vote was uncertainty over various things - and the ScotNats outlining a constitution would sure allay some fears. 

I'll add it to my list of things to present to the electorate prior to Indyref2:

• The rUK divorce plan with timescales
• The New Scotland EU accession plan with timescales
• A first draft of New Scotland's constitution

Yeah it does require work but 'Rome wasn't built in a day' and what the electorate will want, post-Brexit, is a sensible road map.

I would absolutely back a written constitution for Scotland, basically outlining our rights as citizens but without the American model of the rights to religion and guns etc.

Time after time commentators refer to the UK constitution when referring to parliamentary matters etc but as yet I am not aware that such a legally binding document/documents exist.

Any thoughts on this?

[Antlion]

8 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

I would absolutely back a written constitution for Scotland, basically outlining our rights as citizens but without the American model of the rights to religion and guns etc.

Time after time commentators refer to the UK constitution when referring to parliamentary matters etc but as yet I am not aware that such a legally binding document/documents exist.

Any thoughts on this?

What they mean is the English constitution. That’s why they frequently invoke Magna Carta, Henry VIII powers, and seventeenth-century precedent. How can it be a UK constitution if a significant bulk of it, still in active use, comes from periods long before the UK existed? Naturally, not a sliver of Scottish precedent, legislation, custom or tradition is present from the period before the UK came into being. Essentially the UK constitution is the English constitution with added power over Scotland from 1707 onwards.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Antlion

[SandyCromarty]

The UK constitution which Westminster politicians refer to is used in a context to describe civilian matters time after time.

 The Magna Carta was a document composed and written by English Barons to dilute King Johns powers, it was not primarily designed to benefit or legally protect the ordinary citizen.

Similarly much of the same power struggles between Henry VIII and the Church, nothing to do with the citizens.

English Householders got the right to vote in the mid 1800's and the UK working classes finally got the vote in 1918.

The constitution, as I say repeatedly referred to by politicians, can only be references to English Law as not one written constitutional document exists. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by SandyCromarty

[The_Kincardine]

4 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

I would absolutely back a written constitution for Scotland, basically outlining our rights as citizens but without the American model of the rights to religion and guns etc.

Time after time commentators refer to the UK constitution when referring to parliamentary matters etc but as yet I am not aware that such a legally binding document/documents exist.

Any thoughts on this?

I don't want to waffle any more than usual - plus I'm no constitutional expert - but I'll give a bit of a brain dump.

As far as the UK is now - yes, no single document but a combination of statutes and custom.  Some statutes are ignored (such as the Bill Rights' provision for Protestants to be armed) and others (such as the contractual relationship between monarch and parliament as set out in Scotland's Claim of Right) are crucial elements given our constitutional monarchy.  Indeed, the most basic element of the post-1688 constitutional settlement is very Scottish in nature.  The idea of the head of state being subject to law is a Scottish post-reformation development now enshrined in The UK's constitution.

Other elements are based as much on custom, such as Scotland's ecclesiastical and judicial nationalism.  One to placate The Kirk and the other to placate Edinburgh's lawyers post 1707.

Would I codify The UK's constitution?  Not right now - not while we have a constituted monarchy.  Come some sort of extreme crisis, abdication or revolution then of course.  I'm not even sure if introducing some sort of  'rights charter' is of any great value.  Despite the raft of acts/documents/customs/precedents we have, the whole UK constitution pivots on one simple notion:  What parliament wants parliament gets so enshrining rights in law is window dressing.  This is why we can ignore the right of Protestants to 'bear arms' in the UK but not in The US.  We have the tyranny of parliament and they have the tyranny of the constitution.

As far New Scotland?  Well I assume that any sensible person would want a secular republic with a short, pithy and well thought through written constitution.  The first thing to decide is whose rights to strip.  The obvious contenders are Presbyterians who will be denied a National Kirk, monarchists who will be denied their current Head of State and then those who currently have a right to a state-sponsored religious education.

Then you have to decide how the constitution is policed.  It's easy right now - that's parliament.  Yes, there are some backstops, the last one being The Head of State but exercising that would lead to a constitutional crisis.  New Scotland would need some sort of constitutional court - a judicial body to whom parliament defers on constitutional matters.  Simple enough but a cultural stretch for an electorate used to the sovereignty of the commons for more than 300 years.

It's worth a go.  I would really like to see some authoritative group draft a proposed constitution for New Scotland.  I'd certainly go as far as to say it's essential to get independence over the line.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The UK constitution which Westminster politicians refer to is used in a context to describe civilian matters time after time.
 The Magna Carta was a document composed and written by English Barons to dilute King Johns powers, it was not primarily designed to benefit or legally protect the ordinary citizen.
Similarly much of the same power struggles between Henry VIII and the Church, nothing to do with the citizens.
English Householders got the right to vote in the mid 1800's and the UK working classes finally got the vote in 1918.
The constitution, as I say repeatedly referred to by politicians, can only be references to English Law as not one written constitutional document exists. 

The UK constitution is not worth the paper it's not written on.

[The_Kincardine]

10 hours ago, Antlion said:

What they mean is the English constitution. That’s why they frequently invoke Magna Carta, Henry VIII powers, and seventeenth-century precedent. How can it be a UK constitution if a significant bulk of it, still in active use, comes from periods long before the UK existed? Naturally, not a sliver of Scottish precedent, legislation, custom or tradition is present from the period before the UK came into being. Essentially the UK constitution is the English constitution with added power over Scotland from 1707 onwards.

This is, of course, utter bollocks.  The keystone of the Williamite settlement  was  laid down by George Buchanan as early as the 16th Century (1560s probably?) when he delimited the relationship between monarchy and law and was backed up by Samuel Rutherford in the 1640s whose seminal work Lex Rex saw him tried for treason by one of the Stuart kings.

The basic architecture of Britain's post-1688 constitution - that law is king - is undoubtedly a post-reformation protestant Scottish one.

[Antlion]

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is, of course, utter bollocks.  The keystone of the Williamite settlement  was  laid down by George Buchanan as early as the 16th Century (1560s probably?) when he delimited the relationship between monarchy and law and was backed up by Samuel Rutherford in the 1640s whose seminal work Lex Rex saw him tried for treason by one of the Stuart kings.

The basic architecture of Britain's post-1688 constitution - that law is king - is undoubtedly a post-reformation protestant Scottish one.

The fantasies of an ethnic nationalist. A bit like claiming that the US constitution is a Scottish constitution because John Witherspoon was a contributor to its development and ultimately a signatory. 

The truth is that one cannot point to anything in Scottish constitutional history (no legal cases or precedents, no legislation, no Scottish parliamentary Acts) to make a valid constitutional argument in the UK, nor could one, in a dispute, invoke Lex Rex or Buchanan’s earlier writings as part of the documentary corpus of the British constitution.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Antlion

[Gordon EF]

"New Scotland"

[Hampden Diehard]

My first choice would undoubtedly be a republic, but I wouldn't be rejecting it if independence would only come if we had to accept a constitutional monarchy. That's peripheral to running our country ourselves.

[Guest JTS98]

It seems a bit strange to be for Scottish independence in the name of greater equality and opportunity, but then say "By the way, we're going to keep this family who are magically REALLY special and better than everyone else".

I accept it may take a while for public opinion to catch up with this, but being for a hereditary monarchy in the 21st century is frankly bizarre and independence would be an excellent time to consign this nonsense to the history books.

People scoff at superstition and tradition when it comes to religion, but are happy to accept a privileged place in society for weans who get dragged out of the right vag. It's downright weird.

[tirso]

as someone with Spanish heritage constitutions are really important but they are for uncertain times.

Being independent for Scotland should be fairly straightforward with the parliament and democracy already in existence.  

I don't see the need for one other than how the parliament works which presumably would be ported from current legislation.

It might be a laugh making it but nothing contentious should be in there, which makes it somewhat meaningless. 

[SandyCromarty]

On 21/08/2019 at 15:02, JTS98 said:

It seems a bit strange to be for Scottish independence in the name of greater equality and opportunity, but then say "By the way, we're going to keep this family who are magically REALLY special and better than everyone else".

I accept it may take a while for public opinion to catch up with this, but being for a hereditary monarchy in the 21st century is frankly bizarre and independence would be an excellent time to consign this nonsense to the history books.

People scoff at superstition and tradition when it comes to religion, but are happy to accept a privileged place in society for weans who get dragged out of the right vag. It's downright weird.

Couldn't agree more.