WHAT is a Constitution? Do we – in the UK – have one? Do we – in Scotland – need one? These questions are worth asking and answering, especially this week, when the “British Constitution”, in all its imaginary and non-existent glory, has been very much on display.
Let us start with the State Opening of Parliament. It is a curious exercise in political alchemy. The substance of the speech is made of very base materials, alloyed together from equal parts of neoliberal ideology, authoritarian populism, and pure desperation. The bobbing, bowing and doffing, the robes, the setting – the golden throne, the gilt chamber – are all designed to work some kind of sympathetic magic, to transform even the most turdish speech through the closely choreographed liturgy of statecraft into something that will glitter.
People – at least the easily deceived – lap it up. There were small raptures of excitement from the Young Fogeys, thrilled to see the full ceremonial restored to its pre-Covid glory.
READ MORE: Africa is perfectly positioned to fight back against 'Global Britain'
We have seen a lot of this dressing up and prancing around recently, with the Queen’s funeral, the accession, and the coronation (below), all adding to the usual calendar of annual events.
This is not, by the way, a critique of that tradition. I do not have any objection to ceremonial display as such (although it is all weirdly English, tickling the same part of the English national psyche that is amused by panto and Gilbert and Sullivan operettas). An independent Scotland, even if we decided to keep the monarchy, would do these state ceremonial in a very different way, with reformed restraint, and perhaps a bit more of the common touch.
Rather than being angered by the garish aesthetics, however, we should be more concerned about the way in which, in this ramshackle Ruritanian state, ceremonial substitutes for constitutionalism.
At the State Opening of Parliament, the Crown, Lords and Commons are very visibly united. The Church of England is present through the Lords Spiritual. The judiciary is in attendance too. These institutions, coming together, are what some conservatives claim is the British Constitution on display. There is no book, no downloadable and searchable basic law which makes up the Constitution, instead, they claim, you need only turn on your television or open a web browser to see the whole mysterious unity of the British Constitution in its moments of ceremonial consummation.
It is, of course, all smoke and mirrors; a conjuring trick; a hocus pocus. In response to this, I say what I have been saying now for two and a half decades: The emperor has no clothes.
Here we must quote Thomas Paine, a rare example of an Englishman who, more than 200 years ago, saw through the charade: “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have.”
READ MORE: Stuart Cosgrove: London stranglehold is stifling Scottish creativity
In other words, a constitution is a supreme and fundamental law, establishing and regulating the state, protecting the rights of citizens, and capable of being amended only by a special process. That is what the United Kingdom lacks. That is what Scotland must have.
The British Constitution, far from being the “written” or “uncodified” constitution that its supporters claim it to be, is actually no constitution at all. It does not exist. That is not to say that institutions and laws do not exist. Of course they do. But whatever it is that we have, whatever that shadowy pile of statues, conventions and traditions amounts to, it is not a constitution.
Beneath the rotten gilded canopy, darkness reigns. In a policy as morally despicable as it is practically absurd, the UK Government wants to send refugees to Rwanda. The Supreme Court ruled that this is unlawful because Rwanda is not a safe country. The Government’s response has been to bring in “emergency legislation” to overturn the court’s decision. Parliament will declare Rwanda “safe”. Parliament is sovereign, so no court will be able to decide otherwise.
READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Politics needs some giants amid a shortage of talent
The idea that Parliament is sovereign – and that its will is final and absolute – obliterates any pretence of constitutionalism. Ceremonial tradition does not perform any of the functions of a constitution. It does not restrain the state. It does not protect rights. All the UK offers is an unconstituted, absolutist, unconstrained, Crown-in-Parliament. Nothing is safe, because no fundamental laws, guaranteed rights, or foundational principles, bind those in power. They make it up as they go along.
Scotland can and must do better – a proper, modern, democratic, “supreme and fundamental law” constitution as the foundation of our citizenship and our statehood.
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