(12)
(2)
(4)
(73)
(12)
(4)
(88)
(53)
(4)
(31)
(2)
(125)
(22)
(96)
(11)
(1)
(60)
(41)
(131)
(31)
(11)
(26)
(25)
(21)
(15)
(38)
(100)
(153)
(1539)
(192)
(8)
(101)
(2)
(3)
(19)
(16)
(2)
(62)
(461)
(12)
(4)
(10)
(19)
(41)
(136)
(21)
(7)
(36)
(50)
(5)
(3)
(18)
(72)
(8)
When Scotland becomes independent, it would be a wasted opportunity if the new (or rather, reborn) country didn’t get a written constitution — the UK’s unwritten one has always struck me as a bizarre contraption.
I’m by no means the first person to have had this thought — see amongst others Better Nation and the Constitutional Convention, as well as the SNP’s ten-years-old proposed constitution (PDF). There are also some plans about crowd-sourcing a Scottish Constitution, which I might write more about another day.
Without going into the details of what it should and shouldn’t say, I have a few ideas about the length and scope:
If all of this seems a bit daunting, at least there are plenty of existing constitutional documents from all over the world than can be used as a basis, so it should be doable.
It may not be written but the principles are pretty clear. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights essentially are the basis of first the English constitution and then the UK and then Commonwealth constitutions. These limit state control over the life of the ‘common man’. The various acts referenced in the wikipedia article are extra details. If Scotland separates, it can do what it likes, but Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are pretty much all that are needed in terms of defining the relationship of the individual to the state.
Well, those documents aren’t Scottish — up here the relevant documents are probably the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right.
Anyway, I’d prefer a written constitution that the Parliament cannot change by a simple majority.