If Scotland says ‘No’: What Next For The Union? – Our Latest Pamphlet

If we are to believe the polls, Scottish voters will reject independence in September 2014. If so, what happens next? A ‘no’ vote will not mean ‘no change’, and it is very likely that unionist parties will head into the 2015 general election with proposals for further devolution.

What will these policies look like? Is the inevitable ‘next step’ a transfer of significant tax-raising powers to Holyrood? And what are the consequences for the Union as a whole?

The Constitution Society has brought together three leading think tanks form across the political spectrum to explore these questions and propose some possible answers.

With contributions form Professor Michael Keating, Magnus Linklater, Jim Gallagher and Philip Blond, this collaboration with CentreForum, the Fabian Society and ResPublica sets the scene for the post-referendum debate.

The pamphlet can be downloaded here.

18th September 2013

Better Government Initiative Launches New Paper

The Constitution Society is pleased to note that the Better Government Initiative has launched a new paper on the important topic of Civil Service reform. The BGI is supported by The Constitution Society and is made up of high ranking former civil servants who are dedicated to promoting better governance of the United Kingdom. 

Civil Service Reform: Hidden Dangers? was written by the BGI’s Phillip Ward and explores issues surrounding developments in the British Civil Service, making the case for cross-party agreement on any future changes and acting as a reminder that the Civil Service belongs to no single government.

The report can be downloaded here.

12th September 2013

Comment: The Syria vote was a triumph of parliamentary sovereignty

There are several significant angles to last night’s Commons vote on Syria. Foreign policy experts look at Britain’s role in the world and our relationship with the United States; domestic politicos look through the prism of party politics, asking who came out better between Miliband and Cameron. Meanwhile, Syria continues to suffer and we can only now hope that inaction is the lesser of two evils.

But amid the fallout, easily obscured by the more obvious issues of the day, is a seismic shift in the British constitution, an evolution that has crept up quietly but which serves to empower Parliament and constrain the executive. 

While the Prime Minister officially retains the Royal Prerogative to declare war, it is clear that this power is now tempered by the convention that Parliament must vote on the matter beforehand.

Previous votes on Iraq and Libya, while contentious, saw the government of the day validated by the Commons. Before this it had been understood that the executive had a right and duty to declare war as it saw fit. The real test of this innovation was whether a government convinced of the need for military action would respect a vote that opposed it.

The fact that Cameron had to promise the House that it would have a second vote, the fact he has now changed course so dramatically – while retaining the right to declare war – shows that votes like this are not simply rubber stamps but have become a binding convention that can change the foreign policy of a government. Read more ›

30th August 2013

Sir John Elvidge APPG Meeting On Scottish Referendum

The latest meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the British Constitution was honoured to have as its main speaker, Sir John Elvidge, former Permanent Secretary to the Scottish government 2003 – 2010.

Sir John opened the discussion of the issues surrounding the upcoming independence vote by: firstly laying out what he believed were three misjudgments about the nature of constitutional change relating to it, secondly stating what he believed were the two most interesting judgments the UK government has made in its wrangling with the independence movement, and finally outlining the most difficult decision the Scottish government has to consider and get right in this process. Following his introduction, the distinguished guest fielded questions from a room full of parliamentarians and interested observers on the nature of the upcoming referendum, its most important developments so far, and where it might go in the future. 

 Topics discussed included:

  • The calculated risks taken by both governments in framing how the referendum will take place.
  • The extent to which voters’ decisions will be driven by emotional and idealistic notions tied to culture or hard-headed economic reasoning.
  • How the SNP plans to deal with fiscal issues of social security spending and its investment in renewable energy.
  • How important the UK’s continuing EU membership is to Scottish voters.

  And perhaps most intriguingly…

  • The continuing future of ‘DevoMax’ as an alternative option to a Yes/No decision.
  • What a close-margin outcome to the vote could mean for the future of Scotland, independent or not.
  • The possible future of the Orkney, Shetland, and Western Isles if the rest of the country decides to vote Yes.

The full audio recording of this meeting can be found here to listen to or download along with a host of other APPG podcasts.

Read more ›

13th August 2013

Britain and Europe: Past. Present. Future?

On the 18th of July, the Constitution Society and the European Parliament Office held a panel discussion entitled ‘Britain and Europe: Past. Present. Future?’ with four high-profile speakers: Mary Honeyball MEP, Bill Cash  MP, Dr Andrew Blick and Sarah Ludord MEP. The event looked both at the history of Britain’s relationship with the EU and also the future of our constitutional ties to that union. 

James Hallwood, Associate Director of The Constitution Society, opened the event by explaining that ConSoc is an independent, non-party educational foundation that works to promote informed debate about constitutional reform.  He  went on to explain that the night’s event was part of Young People and the Constitution (YPC). This is an initiative from The Constitution Society that aims to educate the politicians, civil servants and lawmakers of the future in the workings of the British constitution. 

Dr Andrew Blick, lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History at King’s College London, began the discussion, looking at Britain’s historical relationship with the EU. An island state with a long tradition of independence from the mainland, Britain unlike Europe, has a tradition of Common rather than Roman law, and as such parliamentary sovereignty can be hard to reconcile with EU legislation. Dr Blick notes however that the British constitution has seen a degree of ‘Europisation’, in particular holding more referendums as a means of decision making (a decidedly more European tradition). Suggesting that such Europisation may be symptomatic of a lack of confidence in parliamentary sovereignty, Dr Blick concluded by suggesting that parliamentary sovereignty is not, in fact, taken seriously in Britain – not even by Eurosceptics.  Read more ›

Young People and the Constitution – EU event on iPlayer

The latest event in the Young People and the Constitution series was a panel discussion on the topic of the EU and its relationship with the British constitution – held on Thursday 18th July. With the title Britain and Europe: Past. Present. Future? the event looked at the history of Britain’s relationship with the EU and also the future of our constitutional ties to the organisation. 

Chaired by our Associate Director, James Hallwood, with a panel of differing opinions but equally high expertise on the matter, the seminar addressed an audience of young people as well as diplomatic staff and journalists. The session was filmed by the BBC and first broadcast on Saturday 20th July. 

Dr Andrew Blick, Mary Honeyball MEP, Bill Cash MP, and Sarah Ludford MEP completed the panel – each offering 10 minute contributions on their thoughts of Britain’s history and future with the European Union. We are indebted to the European Parliament Information Office for hosting this event. 

The discussion avoided polemic and broad brushstrokes in favour of reasoned argument and a sound knowledge of the constitutional history of this complex relationship. 

An abridged film of the event can be found on iPlayer here

22nd July 2013

Tags: , , ,

Freedom of Information – The Ultimate Tool for Transparency?

From everything from hospital ‘blunders’ to personalised number plates, one finds the Freedom of Information Act used to explore a variety of previously undisclosed areas. Many have celebrated the Act, which allows the public to request information from government and public authorities. In 2005, five years after the Act was passed, Jack Straw told parliament that the Act had ‘profoundly changed the relationship between citizens, and the media on the one hand, and the Government and public authorities on the other’. The Freedom of Information Act has seen, often via media investigations, government and public officials held accountability, with a public right to check figures, analyse wastage or read the facts themselves. However despite such praise, the Act has come under criticism from others, who cite wide exceptions, high costs and the power of the ministerial veto.

The Freedom of Information Act has its roots in the likes of Clement Freud’s 1978 ‘Official Information Bill’. Whilst this may have been discarded due to the 1979 election, it showed the support for ‘open government’.  Thereafter, a number of freedom of information bills were presented, unsuccessfully to the house, alongside the passage of specific bills, such as the Data Protection Bill in 1984. These can be seen to culminate in the Freedom of Information Bill, which was given royal assent in November 2000.

Read more ›

Professor Michael Keating speaks about Scotland’s future

Professor Michael Keating is currently writing a paper for The Constitution Society on the important topic of Scotland’s future after the independence referendum in 2014. We will be launching his piece along with responses from CentreForum, the Fabian Society and ResPublica at the party conferences.

In the meanwhile, Professor Keating was kind enough to join us for a quick talk on the issues facing Scotland and her relationship with the rest of the UK. Click here to watch the video.

Professor Keating is the Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen and a key voice on the topics of devolution and nationalism.

The Constitution Society looks forward to launching this timely piece of research in Glasgow at Liberal Democrat party conference, before taking it to Brighton and Manchester platforming the groundbreaking work before Labour and Conservative party conferences respectively. 

Two distinguished recruits for The Constitution Society Advisory Board

The Constitution Society is pleased to announce the addition of Sir Malcolm Jack and Sir Thomas Legg to The Constitution
Society advisory board. 

Sir Malcolm Jack (top picture) was Clerk of the House of Commons from 2006-2011 and is the co-author of our latest report, on Parliamentary privilege. Sir Malcolm is the editor of the current, twenty-fourth, edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice as well as writing and lecturing on constitutional and historical subjects.

 

Sir Thomas Legg (bottom picture) was Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor’s Department and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Sir Thomas has led three inquiries, most famously into the MPs’ expenses scandal. As well as The Constitution Society, Sir Thomas plays an active role in the Better Government Initiative

Both Sir Malcolm Jack and Sir Thomas Legg bring an excellent range of skills and experience to our organisation. The Constitution Society looks forward to working with them to further our call for an informed debate on constitutional issues.

Constitutional legislation is ‘qualitatively different from other types of legislation’ – PCRC reports

The Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) has published its report  on legislative standards [1]after an eighteen month inquiry. 

Graham Allen MP, Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

The Constitution Society welcomes the report as an important contribution to the campaign for a general improvement in the quality of legislation. [2] We especially endorse the fourth of the report’s five key recommendations:  that a test for identifying constitutional legislation should be agreed between Parliament and the Government.

In evidence to the Committee in 2012, the Society argued that constitutional legislation should be distinguished from ordinary legislation for three reasons[3]:

-        Constitutional legislation is the architecture of the state. The elements of the constitution are unavoidably interconnected, so an alteration in one part of the building can have unforeseen consequences in other parts.

-        Most major constitutional legislation has an effective presumption of irreversibility.

-        A practice has arisen under the current government of employing ‘manner and form’ restrictions where a piece of legislation passed by an ordinary majority imposes restrictions on future Parliaments regarding how that legislation is to be implemented or repealed.

Read more ›