Another side of Lesley Riddoch

Iceland’s crowd-sourced Constitution

Iceland's home-made Constitution – lessons for Scotland; Committee Room 1, Scottish Parliament 6-8.30 March 29. Hosted by the Icelandic Embassy

 

Iceland has made a steady recovery since the banking crash of 2008 when the country was placed on the UK Terrorism Register. Slowly but surely this Nordic nation of just 300,000 people has been making sure such a crisis can never undermine the whole country again. The 1944 Constitution needed major revision. A random sample of the population set the framework for a Constitutional Council (ICC) composed of 25 ordinary folk elected from 550 self nominating volunteers. The ICC took 4 months to write the world's newest Constitution with input by e-mail and social media (2/3s of Icelanders are on Facebook). The resulting People's Constitution will be voted on this summer. How did Icelanders manage to take the political initiative? What lessons can Scots learn as we embark on our own constitutional referendum process?

 

Sign up for this Nordic Horizons event in the Scottish Parliament on March 29 hosted by the Icelandic Embassy with economist Professor Thorvaldur Gylfason who won the highest number of votes in the ICC -- and Scottish speakers to be confirmed. Journalist Lesley Riddoch will chair the round table discussion. Places are free but Parliamentary security means we must provide a list of those attending. Email Dan nordichorizons@hotmail.co.uk. Or visit the Nordic Horizons Facebook page and click "going" to this event NOW.

Ranking options in the Scottish Referendum

Many people have been in touch to find out more about Professor Elizabeth Meehan – I quoted her suggestion of ranking preferences in the Scottish indy referendum in today's Scotsman column. I'd give the website address but it's made the page go crazy every time I post and I'm not smart enough to fix it! So guess if you're interested! Anyway Elizabeth has given me permission to publish this whole section of her speedy response to the Referendum Consultation. And the good news is she's coming to be part of the March 29^th Nordic Horizons event on the Crowd-sourced Icelandic Constitution (you'll have to guess that website too! Doh.)

8. What are your views on the question or questions to be asked in a referendum?

 

There is strong evidence throughout the world that offering only binary choices over constitutional issues rarely works well. I know that one of the experts on multi-option voting is responding to the consultation document and I do not want, simply, to replicate what you will be told by him. My views, stated here, stem from points in the consultation document and my sense of the 'will of the people of Scotland'. These support the idea of three options on becoming independent, remaining in the UK as now, and remaining in the UK but with more autonomy.

The consultation document sets great store on the fairness of a referendum. In general, its references to fairness are about procedures and oversight. But, so far as I remember, the speech by the Secretary of State in which he announced the consultation also referred to another form of fairness – democracy. Likewise, 'democracy' features in the Labour Party's support for the Coalition Government's approach. I can see nothing 'fair' about denying voters an option that, according to opinion polls and my own knowledge of family and friends, is the one for which most of them want the opportunity to vote. That is, one about so-called 'devo-max' – though, because of its greater sense of entrenchment, I prefer the term that denoted the long-standing Liberal constitutional preference; 'home rule'.

The consultation document (p. 19) insists that independence and devolution short of independence are separate things and, hence, that the latter should not be in a referendum about the former. But I, and many others, see them as about the same thing; the constitutional status of Scotland. It is not beyond the wit of voters to know that a winning vote for independence would make Scotland a separate state from England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and that a vote for 'devo-max' would leave the UK state intact, albeit with some more federal-type elements.

On the same page, the consultation document expresses fear that voters would be confused by four campaigns; presumably, independence versus the status quo and more (possibly entrenched) devolution versus the status quo. This could occur but only under a non-preferential vote. Under a referendum to be decided upon by a preference vote (see below), there would be three campaigns; one for independence, one for 'devo-max' and one for the status quo. Four or three, no matter; the assumption behind the forecast seems rather to patronize voters. In general elections, voters are asked, at least in theory, to choose from at least three competing visions of how best to order society. In practice, of course, voters often think 'they are all the same' (except Caroline Lucas's supporters, perhaps!). Given the nature of the proposed referendum on Scotland's constitutional future, it seems bizarre to think voters would be unable to see the difference in what each set of campaigners was attempting to communicate.

Despite my scepticism about the consultation document's claim that a vote for independence would be 'straightforward' while one of 'devo-max' would not, I do sympathize with the concern about how to draft a question on the latter. Not only will further devolution take place when the current Scotland Bill is enacted; there will be little time, especially for a referendum 'as soon as possible', to develop, through a democratic process, agreed further powers. (The Scottish Constitutional Convention deliberated for ten years.) But I think that the issue is capable of sensible resolution by a question such as the following: 'Should Scotland have greater power and freedom in the UK, powers and freedoms that would be decided upon through extensive public consultation and participation?' (Or, possibly, 'recommended' as a result of consultation and participation).

This would be one of three questions:

1. Should Scotland become independent?
2. Should Scotland remain part of the UK along present lines?
3. Should Scotland have greater power and freedom in the UK, powers and freedoms that would be decided upon through extensive public consultation and participation?

I also believe that voters should not be asked to choose one but to rank their answers in order of preference. For the sake of legitimacy, it would be much better if the people not getting their first preference got their second and that this was seen by the whole electorate to be so. So far, the talk in Scotland of multi-options has been limited to the possibility of using AV – which can have capricious outcomes. But there are other systems that are better at uncovering a consensual result; for example, the Modified Borda Count.

I fear that, if the government does not listen to all the concerns that I have expressed so far (which, I believe, are widely shared), the proposed referendum will not only be unfair (undemocratic) but also indecisive. Here, I recall the 1979 referendum. This did not fail merely because the usual practice of majority voting was qualified by the requirement that the majority vote (just won by the 'yes' campaign) should equate to 40 % of the electorate. It also failed because voters did not like the Bill upon which they were asked to vote. About one third voted 'no' because they thought it a bad Bill; just over a third voted 'yes', many on the ground that, though a bad Bill, a 'no' vote would remove the topic from the political agenda for the foreseeable future; and about a third, seeing the logic of both positions, stayed at home, thereby depriving either side of much hope of winning support from 40% of the electorate.

I fear that something similar will happen again if the proposed referendum is confined to one question (or two, if independence and the status quo each get one of their own). On the one hand, if people do not like the either/or choice given to them, they may well stay at home in large numbers. This would diminish the legitimacy of the referendum whatever the outcome – for or against independence. Another possibility is that people (whether or not supporters of the Scottish National Party) may interpret an insistence on one question as an exercise, not designed democratically to ascertain the wishes of the people of Scotland, but to frighten them into voting for no change. This could push them from staying at home into voting 'yes' to independence, especially if they are sceptical, as I suspect many are, of assurances by the Coalition Government and the Labour Party that the 'different issue' of further devolution will be taken seriously once the choice of independence is 'out of the way'.

This could be compounded by a further factor. Whether or not in favour of independence, many voters in Scotland (obviously) see the SNP as a more competent governing party for Scotland than the others. Such voters do not, I think, take kindly to the view of other parties (especially the traditional 'home-rulers', the Liberals) that a 'devo-max' question is a 'Salmond wheeze' to 'cover his back', should he lose on independence. Consequently, insistence on a single question soon is likely to be seen, not as a legitimate way of permitting self-determination, but as a cynical means of trying to wrong-foot the SNP.

 

This week's podcast...

Difficult to put this podcast into one simple category. Lesley explains the difference between TV and Radio audiences and their effect on debates. And there is a brief explanation about the new Icelandic constitution which was written using social media and which will be the subject of a Nordic Horizons presentation in March.

Union of Crowns – Nordic precedents

We've just recorded a podcast available at www.lesleyriddoch.com on the difference between the two recent Scottish independence debates where I've been a panellist – on BBC Radio 4 Any Questions and last week on BBC Scotland's TV debate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01bw82l/The_Big_Debate_Choosing_Scotlands_Future After half a lifetime on the wireless I tend to behave like a radio contributor (or a hard-to-silence presenter!) on both mediums. But the structure and control TV exerts definitely dampens the TV audience I think. Anyway have a listen to the podcast and see whit you think. I've been writing about the vexed second question issue again in the Scotsman – also on www.lesleyriddoch.com.

I see confusion is a recurring theme in this referendum debate -- today's Scotsman front page suggests it's confusing for Alex Salmond to talk of a continuing United Kingdom after independence. It would be more accurate for Lec to talk about a continuing Union of Crowns – this happened in Norway between 1814 and 1905 when the King of Sweden was also King of Norway (although the Norwegians opted to elect him after "local" Prince Christian Fredrik nobly stepped aside to prevent a wholesale takeover when the Danes lost Norway after siding with Napoleon.) Do you follow? Anyway, thanks to Christian Fredrik's quick thinking the Norwegians had already drawn up a very radical constitution at Eidsvoll while the Treaty of Kiel was being signed. So when Swedish regal takeover took place, the internal operations of Norway were largely left to the Norwegians for a "highly devolved" century --except when royal prerogative allowed the King to impose Swedish values. So there were bust ups – but the Norwegians pretty much won them all. Ironically, the Swedish King was forced to accept cabinet government in Norway before he accepted it in Sweden! When things finally came to a head in 1905 over separate Norwegian consular representation, it was the Swedish King who insisted on a referendum to confirm the Norwegian people supported the move. The result was 368392 for break-up, and just 184 against! This helped a peaceful transition. The question of who should be head of state in Norway was also resolved by referendum. The Norwegians voted for a monarchy and Prince Carl of Denmark was asked to do the job. He changed his name to become King Haakon VII. So the "auld enemy" was invited back in to the "big symbolic job"! There is surely all sorts of resonance for Scotland and England in this. Certainly our story is different. Its 100 years later. Support for Scottish independence is far weaker than it was in the Nordic nations who separated from their respective Mother Ships in the 20^th century (Finland 1917, Iceland 1944 and Norway 1905). In relative terms, some of those separations involved the same difference in population size experienced by England and Scotland. Iceland at 300k is at least 10 times smaller than the population of Denmark. But then the territories of the two are not contiguous. Finland does share a land border with enormous Mother Russia – but left at a time of revolution and upheaval "next door." The Nordic independence movements do however have one thing in common – theye were all backed by the overwhelming majority of their population at the time and governance had always been more local and empowered than Scotland's. Maybe that's the biggest difference between all the Nordics and ourselves – high levels of doubt about our own abilities that arise from centuries of paternalistic "top-down" governance by a succession of Labour and Tory governments – and from a decision-making class which has always benefitted materially from the economic success of the Union. Still, it amazes me there is so little interest in histories other than our own – and the Irish. The Nordics have handled differences like grown-ups. Surely there are models aplenty for Scotland in there!

 

 

Hello to tweeps or twitter or FB followers

After some recent media, I seem to have a large number of followers in the social media world. One of my interests is the role of the Nordic model in shaping our future. I started a real world group called 'Nordic Horizons'

Nordic Horizons is a policy group that aims to find out what makes the most successful small countries in the world work so well. We have round table debates on specific policy areas in the Scottish Parliament usually kicked off by someone from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Iceland with direct experience. We've already talked about early years, outdoor kindergarten, women's quotas, small municipal government, the High North and drilling for oil in the Arctic and the "Nordic Model" itself. We hope to confirm a sizzling wee programme for the rest of this year by our next meeting on Feb 7th - McKommunes -- people-sized government for Scotland. Nordic Horizons is a cross party and no party group and the aim is to learn from Nordic success, not blindly copy every aspect of Nordic life. We think Scotland needs more working examples of how small nations can work better - whether devolved or independent - and we hope Scotland can bring something to the party too (and not just a large Macallans).

Check out our Facebook group and join in - all event details are also posted here. and you would be very welcome on 7th if you are in Edinburgh- you need to book a place - but  - be quick - there are just 20 places left!

Its my party and Ill cry if I want to.....

Can't quite believe what Malcolm Rifkind said earlier this week regarding the English chucking the union oot the pram completely if the Scots keep whining on about independence. He was responding to news that nearly half of voters in England (45 per cent) believe Scotland gets "more than its fair share of public spending", while 40 per cent believe England gets less than it should. Tory Scottish grandee and former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind warned that politicians should be aware of the circumstances that led to the break-up of Czechoslovakia when debating Scotland's future. He told The Scotsman: "The Slovaks said they wanted more time, but the Czechs had had enough and said, 'Sorry we've decided for you'. "It is quite possible for England to decide it doesn't want the other parts of the United Kingdom."

Firstly -- what about the Welsh and the Northern Irish? Are they ripe for chucking just cos the SNP have started rocking the boat -- tainted by Celtic association? Secondly - what?! The trouble for England is the absence of political leadership to tackle its own democratic deficit and the habit of using Westminster interchangeably as an ad hoc English parliament. I wrote about this in the Scotsman this week www.lesleyriddoch.com and posted these remarks on Facebook yesterday. There's been a right load of interesting reaction.........

• I've heard that William Hague has threatened to stop 'promoting' whisky at British embassy receptions. So unintentionally revealing, these comments, about the nature of the Union.
• The scare story of the week is surely Richard Dannat's- Scottish soldiers would be too bored if they joined a Scottish regiment! While the English lads were off getting blown up in Afghanistan we could send our boys over the border for a wee pre-emptive in Morpeth or Alnwick. Salmond could get on the hotline to Downing Street, "don't worry its not an invasion. The lads were just getting a bit fed up!"
• Classic big-state petulance, when confronted with astonishing sight of once-subservient small state no longer entirely thrilled by their wise and kindly rule! Gorbachev had exactly the same look on his face in 1990, when he realised the Baltic States were serious about breaking away.
• And he used parallel of Czechs with Slovaks .. A total win win situation too .. The Slovaks esp :) .. Unintentionally helpful, clearly had not thought through his scare story.

And here's another constitutional point emailed in about the non-equivalence of Westminster and the sovereign body that represents the English people.....

I listened to you speak during the last week on the matter of the referendum and Scotland's Constitutional position. Not many people know the position and I hope that you might use your communications channels to provide some clarity. I use the short but authoritative article by Prof David Walker (an expert on constitutional law) as my source and it is well worth a read:

 http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx

Here is my short synopsis:

1. The treaty of union was agreed between commissioners for the Parliaments of Scotland and England, and thereafter ratified by the two Parliaments.
2. Acts of Union were passed separately by both Parliaments to bring the UK Parliament into existence.
3. The UK Parliament has no legal authority to alter or repeal the treaty, which remains a treaty in international law.
4. The UK Supreme Court as an institution of the UK Parliament has no legal authority over the treaty that brought the UK Parliament into existence.
5. The treaty must therefore be referred back to representatives of the original contracting parties, with appropriate international oversight; it is not simply a matter for UK domestic law.

6. It becomes arguable of course about who can represent the contracting parties, the Parliament of Scotland possibly being one party, and the representatives of England to be agreed, and as Prof Walker says in his final sentence, this all needs careful consideration.

I read the statement today "constitutional issues are not devolved to Holyrood". We can also say "Under the treaty of union constitutional issues were not devolved by the Parliaments of England and Scotland to Westminster". The treaty of union gave no right to Westminster to alter or repeal the treaty. No Westminster institution can have legal authority over the treaty that set the UK Parliament up. It is an international treaty that can only be changed by the two contracting parties.

 All interesting stuff Ill try to raise in Newsnight Scotland's special referendum debate tomorrow – Burns Night – when Im on the panel with Nicola Sturgeon, Johann Lamont and Michael Moore.

Clocks trending Simon says

More of a crossword clue than the title of a podcast episode; but it has been that sort of week. Daylight Savings gets 'talked out', social media is discussed by youngsters. And Simon Hughes mumbles about devolution. And Lesley is going to be a token Tory...now if that doesn't pique your interest into listening to this week's 'Lesley Riddoch Podcast' - I don't know what will. 

No Daylight Saving please – we’re Scottish

Let me correct what happened on the Daylight Saving Bill today. It seems me old mucker Angus Brendan Macneil (seen having a fly round of golf during the South Uist Games at Askernish last year) was too smart to get directly involved in the filibuster which finally talked it out. The SNP did submit a whole stack of questions beforehand but it was a group of anti-European Tories who did all the talking. Christopher Chope warned change would annoy Scots and prompt them to vote for independence. I'm sorry but that annoys me. And sounds completely coached. Seems likely the SNP helped the Tories talk out an eminently reasonable proposal to cut late afternoon road accidents, save energy and offer winter daylight when people can use it best. Meanwhile SNP MP Pete Wishart - of Runrig and now the parliament's band MP4 - will be chuffed that the Live Music Private Members Bill did get through (perhaps because Chope was too knackered to shout his usual "object".) Yip. this is how we are governed.

Indyref and clock change cowardice

Interesting offer today by Henry McLeish to lead the Devo Max Campaign. Having "served" under his Chairmanship on the Scottish Government's Prisons Commission, I'm sure he'd do it very well -- he's a believer and a real people person. The only worry is that Devo Max will be undelivered at Westminster (if independence is rejected) UNLESS a party like Labour makes it official policy. Devo max must be to Labour what Indy is to the SNP before it looks like more than a spoiling mechanism. Mind you it seems the SNP are familiar enough with that. Sensible legislation to put clocks forward in winter (lighter afternoons) has just been talked out by the SNPs Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tory crackpots. Seems some MPs were worried that clock change might "agitate" the Scots b4 the indyref. Not as agitated as I am that SNP can ignore all the evidence that lighter winter evenings would save Scottish lives, save Scottish energy bills and give us daylight when we can use it for leisure. Instead Angus Brendan was happy to dawdle through the lobby with Tories like Christopher Chope, the arch-terminator of private members' bills, Jacob Rees-Mogg who wants an independent Somerset time zone, and Philip Davies' who called the bill, the "Berlin Time" Bill. Nice company. This is unimpressive "Little Scotlander" posturing over a modest but rational proposal supported by ROSPA, all the sports bodies south of the border and by some brave sorts in Scotland. Even NFU Scotland put their traditional veto on hold to support a reconsideration of the evidence (which is all this bill suggested). I see some wag has already suggested renaming GMT Glasgow Mean Time – since none of the decisions about time in the UK are made anywhere near Greenwich.

Meanwhile, I can't help thinking the scrap Fred the Shred's Knighthood rammy is a distraction. By all accounts RBS are set to give his successor an austerity-mocking £1.5 million bonus. They also stand accused of failing to support long standing business customers through tough patches forcing them into the arms of the receivers and jeopardising 11,000 jobs last week alone. It seems despite the Coalition's "get tough" measures, top bankers are still just waving two fingers at society. What's to be done about that?

Any Questions

The crew after last week's Any Questions Debate – the hard to recognise junior politicians in red jackets are lasses from Loretto School. Thanks to Jonathan Hewat – who is Director of External Affairs there, not the Headie as I thought in the latest podcast!