Canon Kenyon Wright's speech
On Tuesday afternoon Canon Kenyon Wright CBE addressed the English Constitutional Convention in the Stranger's Dining Room at the Houses of Parliament. Pictured here with Mike Knowles (Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament) who was chairing the meeting.
Kenyon Wright was one of the architects of Scottish devolution. He served as Executive Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989-1999), and was a member of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. He also chairs People & Parliament, which carried out an extensive nationwide survey of the expectations of the people for Scotland and for the new Parliament.
In 1999, Canon Wright was awarded a CBE “for services to Scottish Devolution and Constitutional Reform”, and in 2000 was given an Honorary D.Litt. from Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, on similar grounds.
Canon Wright and his colleagues on the SCC expected Scottish devolution to be followed by a round of English regional devolution. He was a supporter of devolution to English regions and recently he was working with the new Constitutional Conventions in the English Regions. However, following the rejection of regional assemblies by the people of England he now sees English regional assemblies as "a complete non-starter", and in light of England's "growing sense of national identity" Canon Wright has now come out in favour of a "strong English Parliament, alongside Scotland's and a strengthened Welsh legislature".
Also speaking at the ECC were Mark Gill (Ipsos MORI) who explained to the Convention the methodology and relevance of the recent MORI poll that indicates that 41% of voters support an English parliament.
Looking around the room I could see a number of influential faces that I recognised. I'm pleased to report that Sir George Young MP (the intellect behind English Votes on English Matters) was there, had he taken heed of my recent letter to him? So was Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, who I recently interviewed on the CEP Blog. Simon Hughes MP turned up for ten minutes, polished off a load of sandwiches and volauvents, and then let himself out without so much as a by-or-leave. A couple of other MPs that I didn't recognise also made their presence known during the Questions and Answers phase of proceedings and I am reliably informed that there were a number of others, from all parties, including several Lords.
Canon Kenyon Wright's speech was extremely well delivered and very well received because it was full of useful tips for the ECC that can be drawn from the experience of the SCC. Following is my transcript of Canon Kenyon Wight's speech to the ECC.
------ Canon Kenyon Wright, 24th October 2006 ------
Can I just say right at the start that I very much agree with the remark that has just been made, that the way forward is to convince people that constitutional matters are not dry and dusty, but affect their lives. That’s what happened in Scotland; it worked in Scotland for two fundamental reasons.
First, because we rediscovered something about our own heritage - our own constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people.
But second, because of things like the poll tax. In other words the Scottish people saw that measure after measure after measure was being imposed upon them against the manifest will of at least 80% of Scottish MPs and Scottish opinion. And I think it was that….In other words….people came to realise that justice to them depended not on who governed us, anymore, but on how we were governed. So that the link was made very, very clearly.
As I was coming down today – a beautiful day, I came down on the train – through England’s green and pleasant land, I was reflecting on how different England and Scotland are in many ways; I live in the midst of the mountains, in the Trossachs. But also [reflecting on] how much we need each other and how much we should be together, but on the basis of equality, on the basis of an equal way forward. And that, it seems to me, is the way.
Scottish identity is a very real thing, and has been for years. In the 15th Century a Spanish ambassador to the Court of one of the King James’ of Scotland wrote to the Spanish Monarch and said, and I quote, ‘nothing pleases the Scots so much as abusing the English’.
[laughter]
15th Century. I’m afraid there has been that element in Scottish history! But I hope that now we have our own parliament and identity that those days are firmly behind us.
The last thing you obviously need is another Scot telling you what to do. I expect you feel you have plenty of them already. Some have been mentioned. England and Scotland are obviously different; ‘Vive la Difference’ do I hear you say? However, in the Scottish Constitutional Convention we explicitly recognise that our success must be the forerunner of further constitutional change.
We produced two reports
One in ‘91 called Towards Scotland’s Parliament which was a preliminary report because we expected the ‘92 General Election to make change, but of course it did not from our point of view. And we therefore worked harder and harder to produce a much more substantial document ‘Scotland’s Parliament Scotland’s Right’ which was the basis on which the legislation was formed, and it was very faithfully formed.
I was given an account on every part of the new legislation, and on comparing with the recommendations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention it was very close to that.
The Scottish Convention admittedly expected us to be followed by constitutional change in the form of regional elected governments in England, as has already been said. Leading to a kind of, what David Steel called, differentiated federalism, with varying powers for various areas. But two things have clearly changed my personal view. The first is of course the north east referendum and the very massive rejection, and the fact that regional government is for any foreseeable future a complete non-starter. So that door is closed, whatever we think of its wisdom or otherwise.
But second, and this is perhaps more important I have actually become convinced, is that England has a growing sense of national identity every bit as strong as ours. And that an English parliament if the people want it, and that’s very important - ‘if the people want it’ we have always said that – is as much your right as we claimed it to be ours.
We started with something called the Claim of Right for Scotland.
The first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention did not begin with a political goal; we had a constitutional goal, of course,
It began with a fundamental statement of principle, the so-called Claim of Right for Scotland. And the Claim of Right for Scotland said: "We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs". So it was a principle recognition of the sovereign right of the people.
So when all those MPs, Labour and Liberal Democrat; and all those representatives of local government; and of the churches; and of the academic community; and of the Trade Union movement; when they all lined up to sign that claim of right at the first meeting of the Convention, I tell you this - most of the MPs didn’t know what they were signing!
[laughter]
…Because they were signing something which was a direct contradiction of the claim of Westminster to absolute sovereignty, within our unwritten constitutional system. Because if the people are sovereign then Parliament still has an important role but it’s not an absolutist role.
But that is by-the-way, and I won’t go too much into that.
But I do say, therefore, that it’s quite irrational for those who signed that Claim in Scotland, from different political parties, now to deny that same sovereign right to the people of England. It’s irrational.
[Hear, hear]
And therefore, could the Claim of Right for Scotland be followed by a Claim of Right for England? That’s up to you, but I don’t see why not.
Indeed, I hope that our rediscovery of our own national identity has actually contributed to the growing sense of English nationhood. Not ‘nationalism’, I don’t like to use that word, but national identity. We started with a fundamental principle that is not Scottish, but universal: The sovereignty of the people.
Now there’s a long road ahead of you, and we had a long road. We started in ’89, we published our final statement in ’95 we achieved our parliament in ‘99, through our referendum in’ 97. You know all the history, but it was a long hard road. Yours will be different from ours, I know that. I can’t give you much advise on that except to suggest that some of the milestones on our journey might be relevant. But on how they are relevant is for you to say, not for me.
We progressed in four basis stages from that first principle that I spoke of. First we brought together the broadest cross-section of Scottish society in living memory. Believing that "politics is too important to be left to politicians". The Convention included politicians, of course, but it went far beyond that as I have already said.
We were genuinely saddened by the refusal of the Conservative Party and, incidentally, the Scottish National Party for different reasons, opposite reasons, to take part in the Constitutional Convention. Indeed, to the very end we kept vacant seats for them as a mark of the fact that the doors were open to the end. Mind you, if I’m honest, part of me wanted them there and part of me was very glad that they weren’t because it was damned difficult to get the consensus in the first place. If the SNP had been there it probably would have been nigh impossible. We were genuinely saddened by that however because we hoped for an immaculate work by all; whatever their views on devolution; for them to actually have been a part of the shaping of the consensus for the future which we were working on rather than standing aloof.
And to us it’s very welcome that David Cameron now sees that as a mistake – that holding aloof from the work of the Convention. Especially of course, as I never tire of reminding them, how the electoral system allows the Scottish Conservatives to have a significant representation in the Scottish Parliament that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. In the first Scottish Parliament they wouldn’t have had a single member - they had eighteen out of 129, a very substantial and real representation. Indeed, George Robertson is on record as saying that he thought it was the only example in history of a party creating an electoral system that would deprive it of a majority. Because the electoral system had the effect *and* was designed to have the effect that first, no party could gain a majority without the majority of the votes and second, that the representation of parties should be at least roughly, broadly, according to the number of votes that they received.
There are criticisms of it and many people want to change it, but I don’t want to go into that now. The fact is that among 129 people in the Scottish Parliament we have 7 Socialists, 6 Greens, 1 Senior Citizens Unity Party, and 3 Independents: 17 people out of 129 representing smaller groups and parties, and fairly representing them according to the votes that they received along the way.
So the first thing we did was that we brought together a cross-section.
Secondly, we planned in detail and via a consensus method unique in Britain’s adversarial politics. We had a rule that nothing could ever be passed without at least the consent of every major group in the Convention; we never took a vote one any major issue, there had to be consent. I could tell you stories if you wanted me to about how difficult that was, and the times that we almost despaired of achieving on the numbers in the Parliament, I won’t go into that, but that’s a good example…or on the financial arrangements, and so on.
So we wanted a fairer electoral system, more open, more participative ways of working, and real and substantial powers but firmly within the United Kingdom. Incidentally it was important to us that the powers of the Scottish Parliament were defined by exclusion, not by inclusion. In other words everything except that which was specifically reserved to Westminster – defence, foreign policy, macro-economic policy, social security policy, and so on – everything except those areas specifically reserved were devolved. Instead of trying to define every single small thing as they had tried to do in the ’79 attempt, which as you of course know failed.
The third thing I would say was that we campaigned to ensure that the Scottish Parliament was, in the words of the late John Smith, the ‘settled will of the Scottish people’. And I was delighted the other day to hear David Cameron use exactly those words. I don’t know if he knew that he was quoting John Smith, but he actually said it and it must be clear to the Conservatives now that the Scottish Parliament is the settled will of the Scottish people.
Fourthly we saw our parliament as a means, not an end, we called it ‘the central institutional of a new political and community culture in which power is really shared with the people’.
Finally, the Scottish Parliament accepted four principles. The four principles were, in a nutshell, I won’t quote them in full:
Power sharing - executive, parliament and people.
Accountability - executive and parliament to the people, not just at elections. Real accountability
.
Participative approach to the development of policy.
And fourthly equal opportunities.
It has these as its fixed starting point. It hasn’t always lived up to them let me say. If you ask me if the Scottish Parliament is exactly what it should be then the answer is ‘no I don’t think it is’. I think it’s gone the wrong way.
Our very success created, of course, the anomaly that you have to struggle with. The so-called West Lothian Question. In a nutshell that’s the undemocratic nonsense that MPs from Scotland can vote and decide on Education or the NHS in Gloucester but not in Glasgow, in Edgebaston but not in Edinburgh. This raises the real possibility that MPs from Scotland could actually hold the balance of power to impose policies in England against the will of most English MPs. Mind you, in parenthesis, let me say we in Scotland had to live with the opposite reality that policies like the poll tax and many others, hated and rejected in Scotland, could be forced on us by English MPs. However, we Scots must be gracious enough to recognise that two wrongs do not make a right, and that one democratic deficit does not justify another democratic deficit.
But that dangerous anomaly of the West Lothian Question will not be ended simply by banning Scottish MPs from voting in the Commons on English matters. That creates more problems than it solves for it would create an English parliament without an English government and executive. And could easily lead to a situation where one party had the majority in the Commons as the UK Parliament while another party had the majority when it sat in effect as an English parliament. English policy and law could be in direct contradiction to UK policy. That is tolerable in Scotland because we have a legislature with its own executive and civil service to implement policy in all devolved areas. It’s worth noting too that the devolution settlement gives us power – I’ve already said that - in all areas not specifically reserved.
The obvious solution is a strong English parliament, alongside Scotland and a strengthened Welsh legislature; all part of a reformed and renewed and healthier union - United Kingdom. And with Northern Ireland too, although I admit that there is in Northern Ireland such a….the situation is so different because of the understanding of constitutional matters, and because constitutional matters are the primary issue that divides the politics. But I don’t want to go into that.
But your task is even greater than ours, for England is so much larger and diverse. But you must succeed, not just for England, but for us too. For we have a common interest in power shared and limited, and in reversing the widespread and corrosive cynicism of our formal politics and politicians.
That will not weaken or destroy the Union. It will certainly change it. Right? It will certainly question some of its constitutional presumptions but it will not destroy the Union, it may well save it. An English parliament would join hands with Scotland’s parliament as a promise, not a threat, unless it be the threat of a good example.
The initiative here has to come from the people, not just the formal political parties. I commend to you the recent report of the Power Inquiry chaired by Lady Helena Kennedy which showed with massive evidence, the disengagement from, and even contempt for – their words – formal politics, though not lack of interest in political issues.
They showed that and they made proposals for change that I am actually perusing in Scotland with the Executive and the Civil Society. And they conclude "An alliance for change needs to be built amongst the most clear-sighted politicians, but only a sustained campaign for change from *outside*' - the emphasis is theirs - 'the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure that meaningful reform occurs. We the people have to stake our claim on power’.
That is what we did in Scotland. I believe that it is what you must do.
[Applause]
Kenyon Wright was one of the architects of Scottish devolution. He served as Executive Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989-1999), and was a member of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. He also chairs People & Parliament, which carried out an extensive nationwide survey of the expectations of the people for Scotland and for the new Parliament.
In 1999, Canon Wright was awarded a CBE “for services to Scottish Devolution and Constitutional Reform”, and in 2000 was given an Honorary D.Litt. from Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, on similar grounds.
Canon Wright and his colleagues on the SCC expected Scottish devolution to be followed by a round of English regional devolution. He was a supporter of devolution to English regions and recently he was working with the new Constitutional Conventions in the English Regions. However, following the rejection of regional assemblies by the people of England he now sees English regional assemblies as "a complete non-starter", and in light of England's "growing sense of national identity" Canon Wright has now come out in favour of a "strong English Parliament, alongside Scotland's and a strengthened Welsh legislature".
Also speaking at the ECC were Mark Gill (Ipsos MORI) who explained to the Convention the methodology and relevance of the recent MORI poll that indicates that 41% of voters support an English parliament.
Looking around the room I could see a number of influential faces that I recognised. I'm pleased to report that Sir George Young MP (the intellect behind English Votes on English Matters) was there, had he taken heed of my recent letter to him? So was Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, who I recently interviewed on the CEP Blog. Simon Hughes MP turned up for ten minutes, polished off a load of sandwiches and volauvents, and then let himself out without so much as a by-or-leave. A couple of other MPs that I didn't recognise also made their presence known during the Questions and Answers phase of proceedings and I am reliably informed that there were a number of others, from all parties, including several Lords.
Canon Kenyon Wright's speech was extremely well delivered and very well received because it was full of useful tips for the ECC that can be drawn from the experience of the SCC. Following is my transcript of Canon Kenyon Wight's speech to the ECC.
Can I just say right at the start that I very much agree with the remark that has just been made, that the way forward is to convince people that constitutional matters are not dry and dusty, but affect their lives. That’s what happened in Scotland; it worked in Scotland for two fundamental reasons.
First, because we rediscovered something about our own heritage - our own constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people.
But second, because of things like the poll tax. In other words the Scottish people saw that measure after measure after measure was being imposed upon them against the manifest will of at least 80% of Scottish MPs and Scottish opinion. And I think it was that….In other words….people came to realise that justice to them depended not on who governed us, anymore, but on how we were governed. So that the link was made very, very clearly.
As I was coming down today – a beautiful day, I came down on the train – through England’s green and pleasant land, I was reflecting on how different England and Scotland are in many ways; I live in the midst of the mountains, in the Trossachs. But also [reflecting on] how much we need each other and how much we should be together, but on the basis of equality, on the basis of an equal way forward. And that, it seems to me, is the way.
Scottish identity is a very real thing, and has been for years. In the 15th Century a Spanish ambassador to the Court of one of the King James’ of Scotland wrote to the Spanish Monarch and said, and I quote, ‘nothing pleases the Scots so much as abusing the English’.
[laughter]
15th Century. I’m afraid there has been that element in Scottish history! But I hope that now we have our own parliament and identity that those days are firmly behind us.
The last thing you obviously need is another Scot telling you what to do. I expect you feel you have plenty of them already. Some have been mentioned. England and Scotland are obviously different; ‘Vive la Difference’ do I hear you say? However, in the Scottish Constitutional Convention we explicitly recognise that our success must be the forerunner of further constitutional change.
We produced two reports
One in ‘91 called Towards Scotland’s Parliament which was a preliminary report because we expected the ‘92 General Election to make change, but of course it did not from our point of view. And we therefore worked harder and harder to produce a much more substantial document ‘Scotland’s Parliament Scotland’s Right’ which was the basis on which the legislation was formed, and it was very faithfully formed.
I was given an account on every part of the new legislation, and on comparing with the recommendations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention it was very close to that.
The Scottish Convention admittedly expected us to be followed by constitutional change in the form of regional elected governments in England, as has already been said. Leading to a kind of, what David Steel called, differentiated federalism, with varying powers for various areas. But two things have clearly changed my personal view. The first is of course the north east referendum and the very massive rejection, and the fact that regional government is for any foreseeable future a complete non-starter. So that door is closed, whatever we think of its wisdom or otherwise.
But second, and this is perhaps more important I have actually become convinced, is that England has a growing sense of national identity every bit as strong as ours. And that an English parliament if the people want it, and that’s very important - ‘if the people want it’ we have always said that – is as much your right as we claimed it to be ours.
We started with something called the Claim of Right for Scotland.
The first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention did not begin with a political goal; we had a constitutional goal, of course,
It began with a fundamental statement of principle, the so-called Claim of Right for Scotland. And the Claim of Right for Scotland said: "We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs". So it was a principle recognition of the sovereign right of the people.
So when all those MPs, Labour and Liberal Democrat; and all those representatives of local government; and of the churches; and of the academic community; and of the Trade Union movement; when they all lined up to sign that claim of right at the first meeting of the Convention, I tell you this - most of the MPs didn’t know what they were signing!
[laughter]
…Because they were signing something which was a direct contradiction of the claim of Westminster to absolute sovereignty, within our unwritten constitutional system. Because if the people are sovereign then Parliament still has an important role but it’s not an absolutist role.
But that is by-the-way, and I won’t go too much into that.
But I do say, therefore, that it’s quite irrational for those who signed that Claim in Scotland, from different political parties, now to deny that same sovereign right to the people of England. It’s irrational.
[Hear, hear]
And therefore, could the Claim of Right for Scotland be followed by a Claim of Right for England? That’s up to you, but I don’t see why not.
Indeed, I hope that our rediscovery of our own national identity has actually contributed to the growing sense of English nationhood. Not ‘nationalism’, I don’t like to use that word, but national identity. We started with a fundamental principle that is not Scottish, but universal: The sovereignty of the people.
Now there’s a long road ahead of you, and we had a long road. We started in ’89, we published our final statement in ’95 we achieved our parliament in ‘99, through our referendum in’ 97. You know all the history, but it was a long hard road. Yours will be different from ours, I know that. I can’t give you much advise on that except to suggest that some of the milestones on our journey might be relevant. But on how they are relevant is for you to say, not for me.
We progressed in four basis stages from that first principle that I spoke of. First we brought together the broadest cross-section of Scottish society in living memory. Believing that "politics is too important to be left to politicians". The Convention included politicians, of course, but it went far beyond that as I have already said.
We were genuinely saddened by the refusal of the Conservative Party and, incidentally, the Scottish National Party for different reasons, opposite reasons, to take part in the Constitutional Convention. Indeed, to the very end we kept vacant seats for them as a mark of the fact that the doors were open to the end. Mind you, if I’m honest, part of me wanted them there and part of me was very glad that they weren’t because it was damned difficult to get the consensus in the first place. If the SNP had been there it probably would have been nigh impossible. We were genuinely saddened by that however because we hoped for an immaculate work by all; whatever their views on devolution; for them to actually have been a part of the shaping of the consensus for the future which we were working on rather than standing aloof.
And to us it’s very welcome that David Cameron now sees that as a mistake – that holding aloof from the work of the Convention. Especially of course, as I never tire of reminding them, how the electoral system allows the Scottish Conservatives to have a significant representation in the Scottish Parliament that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. In the first Scottish Parliament they wouldn’t have had a single member - they had eighteen out of 129, a very substantial and real representation. Indeed, George Robertson is on record as saying that he thought it was the only example in history of a party creating an electoral system that would deprive it of a majority. Because the electoral system had the effect *and* was designed to have the effect that first, no party could gain a majority without the majority of the votes and second, that the representation of parties should be at least roughly, broadly, according to the number of votes that they received.
There are criticisms of it and many people want to change it, but I don’t want to go into that now. The fact is that among 129 people in the Scottish Parliament we have 7 Socialists, 6 Greens, 1 Senior Citizens Unity Party, and 3 Independents: 17 people out of 129 representing smaller groups and parties, and fairly representing them according to the votes that they received along the way.
So the first thing we did was that we brought together a cross-section.
Secondly, we planned in detail and via a consensus method unique in Britain’s adversarial politics. We had a rule that nothing could ever be passed without at least the consent of every major group in the Convention; we never took a vote one any major issue, there had to be consent. I could tell you stories if you wanted me to about how difficult that was, and the times that we almost despaired of achieving on the numbers in the Parliament, I won’t go into that, but that’s a good example…or on the financial arrangements, and so on.
So we wanted a fairer electoral system, more open, more participative ways of working, and real and substantial powers but firmly within the United Kingdom. Incidentally it was important to us that the powers of the Scottish Parliament were defined by exclusion, not by inclusion. In other words everything except that which was specifically reserved to Westminster – defence, foreign policy, macro-economic policy, social security policy, and so on – everything except those areas specifically reserved were devolved. Instead of trying to define every single small thing as they had tried to do in the ’79 attempt, which as you of course know failed.
The third thing I would say was that we campaigned to ensure that the Scottish Parliament was, in the words of the late John Smith, the ‘settled will of the Scottish people’. And I was delighted the other day to hear David Cameron use exactly those words. I don’t know if he knew that he was quoting John Smith, but he actually said it and it must be clear to the Conservatives now that the Scottish Parliament is the settled will of the Scottish people.
Fourthly we saw our parliament as a means, not an end, we called it ‘the central institutional of a new political and community culture in which power is really shared with the people’.
Finally, the Scottish Parliament accepted four principles. The four principles were, in a nutshell, I won’t quote them in full:
Power sharing - executive, parliament and people.
Accountability - executive and parliament to the people, not just at elections. Real accountability
.
Participative approach to the development of policy.
And fourthly equal opportunities.
It has these as its fixed starting point. It hasn’t always lived up to them let me say. If you ask me if the Scottish Parliament is exactly what it should be then the answer is ‘no I don’t think it is’. I think it’s gone the wrong way.
Our very success created, of course, the anomaly that you have to struggle with. The so-called West Lothian Question. In a nutshell that’s the undemocratic nonsense that MPs from Scotland can vote and decide on Education or the NHS in Gloucester but not in Glasgow, in Edgebaston but not in Edinburgh. This raises the real possibility that MPs from Scotland could actually hold the balance of power to impose policies in England against the will of most English MPs. Mind you, in parenthesis, let me say we in Scotland had to live with the opposite reality that policies like the poll tax and many others, hated and rejected in Scotland, could be forced on us by English MPs. However, we Scots must be gracious enough to recognise that two wrongs do not make a right, and that one democratic deficit does not justify another democratic deficit.
But that dangerous anomaly of the West Lothian Question will not be ended simply by banning Scottish MPs from voting in the Commons on English matters. That creates more problems than it solves for it would create an English parliament without an English government and executive. And could easily lead to a situation where one party had the majority in the Commons as the UK Parliament while another party had the majority when it sat in effect as an English parliament. English policy and law could be in direct contradiction to UK policy. That is tolerable in Scotland because we have a legislature with its own executive and civil service to implement policy in all devolved areas. It’s worth noting too that the devolution settlement gives us power – I’ve already said that - in all areas not specifically reserved.
The obvious solution is a strong English parliament, alongside Scotland and a strengthened Welsh legislature; all part of a reformed and renewed and healthier union - United Kingdom. And with Northern Ireland too, although I admit that there is in Northern Ireland such a….the situation is so different because of the understanding of constitutional matters, and because constitutional matters are the primary issue that divides the politics. But I don’t want to go into that.
But your task is even greater than ours, for England is so much larger and diverse. But you must succeed, not just for England, but for us too. For we have a common interest in power shared and limited, and in reversing the widespread and corrosive cynicism of our formal politics and politicians.
That will not weaken or destroy the Union. It will certainly change it. Right? It will certainly question some of its constitutional presumptions but it will not destroy the Union, it may well save it. An English parliament would join hands with Scotland’s parliament as a promise, not a threat, unless it be the threat of a good example.
The initiative here has to come from the people, not just the formal political parties. I commend to you the recent report of the Power Inquiry chaired by Lady Helena Kennedy which showed with massive evidence, the disengagement from, and even contempt for – their words – formal politics, though not lack of interest in political issues.
They showed that and they made proposals for change that I am actually perusing in Scotland with the Executive and the Civil Society. And they conclude "An alliance for change needs to be built amongst the most clear-sighted politicians, but only a sustained campaign for change from *outside*' - the emphasis is theirs - 'the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure that meaningful reform occurs. We the people have to stake our claim on power’.
That is what we did in Scotland. I believe that it is what you must do.
[Applause]
posted by Gareth at 6:21 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home