I am aware that we don't have a written constitution. Given that so much confusion exists and uncharted constitutional waters can only be navigated by ongoing negotiation, my point is that it might be a good idea to start having some serious negotiations before devolving more powers - or intend before offering more devolved powers (though when did Mr Brown ever bother about negotiation?). Of course, number 10 and the Scottish government may be burning the midnight oil as we speak and thrashing the whole thing out amicably, in as fine a detail as they can with lots of give and take on both sides, but I rather doubt it. Therefore, if your interpretation of the constitutional status of devolved parliaments and assemblies prevails, Scotland's devo max will effectively be subject to the supervision of young Dave and adenoidal Ed and if Holyrood make a mess of things Westminster could in theory the plug and take over. Are you going to tell Finm or shall I?
Precisely. That's the difference between independence and devolution. Independence is a permanent, irreversible rupture. Devolution is a delegation, which like all delegations could be resumed. The devolved parliaments/assemblies in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are the creatures of the Westminster parliament, and could be amended, suspended or abolished. If they got in a total mess, Westminster would be obliged to rescue them, reconstitute them, or bail them out. That is what the Scottish voters chose: devolution but not independence. Predictably some people now want to re-define further devolution in such a way that it would be indistinguishable from independence, but they are away with the fairies.
the names fin and what is it you are trying to tell me?. if your trying to tell me that our parliament is still at the mercy of 500 English MPs. try telling me something i don't know. they are going to give us more TAX raising powers, to help sort out Westminster cock up's. maybe contribute to the new war that might be looming. the new cap on child benifit possibly.
The US Bill of Rights and Ammendments is a concise document and accessible to all with reasonable education and intelligence.
Not really. People in the USA can and do still argue about the meaning of the constitution, its effects, and its application to today's conditions. But at least those arguments start off from a solid basis widely agreed. In the UK, it's all a lot more woolly and debateable. Some UK constitutional changes have emerged gradually without any kind of debate or vote at all - it's just discovered later on that the change seems to have crept in. It's quite amusing that David Cameron's old politics tutor at Oxford, Prof. Vernon Bogdanor, has said how shocked he is that Cameron, one of the ablest pupils Bogdanor ever had (which is saying something), would make up far-reaching constitutional changes on the hoof without consultation. Bogdanor thought he had taught Cameron better than that, but it seems not. He's offered to give him a few more tutorials.
