SO here we are post-election and in a position to decide the next steps. How many senior managers do you know of, with a large staff, who would be left in charge after admitting they can only handle one major issue at a time? Or is this just a clever tactical ploy?
Yet the entire case for the opposition parties is that we should put independence on the back burner until Covid becomes just another forgotten crisis. Nor did the SNP take long to agree – and that’s really worrying. It would be reassuring to know progress is being made. We need to see a unifying vision that the Yes Movement can get behind, given the potential “love-bombing” and federal models that seem to be emerging.
Now the election is over, the debate seems already to have moved on. Even Unionists and those who are uncertain are asking for clarity on how an independent country could be run. Independence seekers need that certainly, too, and getting involved on Constitution for Scotland’s interactive website is how we can move the debate on together.
So, let’s start with the basics. Who do you consider politicians should be primarily accountable to? Political party leaders or Constituency Assemblies?
What would you like to see in Scotland’s written constitution about holding politicians and government officials accountable to their employers, your and me?
Do you consider that there should be clear, precise rules to provide advisory balance, with severe violation penalties, to protect politicians from the corrupting pressures of big money lobbyists?
READ MORE: David Cameron admits 'big investment' in Greensill but says no link to lobbying
Recently, the media have been exposing the corruption, underhand lobbying and cronyism of the Westminster Parliament. While our lobbying rules are clearer, should we not also be seeking to revisit practices at Holyrood?
For example, how about the multitude (36% of all appeal cases between 2015 and 2020) of planning applications that have been rejected by locally elected planning committees only to be given the high-five at central government level? Would a third party right of appeal be a positive way to counter centralisation?
Is the government of Scotland failing to adequately address, among other issues, the biggest problem impacting every aspect of our society, namely the outdated feudal style land tenure system and its effect on housing land availability and cost?
While the detailed regulations will be considered in Parliament, surely the people must take the responsibility of setting the main framework? The only way to ensure we hold our elected representatives and public officials to account is via a strict set of rules that are established by an impartial agency, independent of political parties.
A written constitution will provide the authority for these rules that are necessary to effectively hold elected politicians and government institutions to account. However, it will take the involvement and lots of pressure from the grassroots to achieve a meaningful system of checks, balances and consequences, and you can help when you use the “thumbs-up” icon to indicate the proposals in the constitution that you agree with. But remember, it will be Parliament that legislates a written constitution into existence, so we will also require elected representatives of integrity who place the welfare of the people foremost in their endeavours – people before party politics.
Article 11 of the model constitution is about government auditing and accountability. But will any of it have any more meaning unless the rules are set out by independent commissions from outside the political sphere?
How effective have the current Auditor General service and the Public Services Ombudsman systems been when one hears of the wastage of taxpayers’ money due to the self-opinionated, arrogant and often petty behaviour of senior politicians and government officials? Who should the likes of the Auditor General and the Lord Advocate be accountable to? Is it not time for these roles to be reassessed and updated by an impartial independent commission? Who set out the current rules on lobbying at Holyrood? Who set out the Code of Conduct for representatives at Holyrood?
Meanwhile at Westminster, inside Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office, a special unit screens journalists and blocks “sensitive” Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. As long as the politicians and their acolytes write the rules for themselves you can forget about democracy, honesty, integrity and accountability.
Article 11 of the model constitution also highlights the need for an impartial Broadcasting and Media Audit Board with the authority and competence to ensure accurate unbiased truthful information.
In the next instalment in the series, we will look at Article 12: services currently held by local authorities to be held autonomously and shared between regional and community councils.
By May 10, the CfS constitution had 5977 visits, 928 comments and 873 “thumbs-up” votes.
To interested groups the Constitution for Scotland team offers a “guest speaker” introduction, demonstration and Q&A session within your own Zoom meeting. Please contact info@constitutionforscotland.scot to arrange.
Robert Ingram is chair of Constitution for Scotland
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel