The Herald Election Site

The newly-elected Scottish Parliament needs to build up an internet-based People's Chamber to sound out detailed public opinion on its proposals, according to one of the architects of devolution in the 1990s.

Canon Kenyon Wright, one of the leaders of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, is also arguing that expert panels should be appointed on every major devolved policy area, with their members providing advice to MSPs and taking a longer view than the next election.

He is to set out the ideas in a speech today, after the close outcome of the election began to force a change in the way Holyrood operates.

Canon Wright has been at the forefront of a campaign to create a constitutional commission to consider ways in which Holyrood can develop, including new powers it could take on from Westminster. That could have some support from the SNP, which is expected to move into a minority administration next Wednesday.

He will tell a meeting of the Institute for Contemporary Scotland that minority government should not be seen as second best, but "as a dynamic, positive and welcome step to the new politics".

Still no Lib-Dem has answered my question: why the hostility to referendums? I would have thought they were potentially an intrinsic part of the democratic process; after all, conventions allow the appointees in society to have their say, so why not let the people have a say in referendums?

A grassroots organisation is the way ahead - the previous Constitutional Convention was too top-down and the political innovations that it proposed, by way of Cross Party Groups and the Petitions Committee, have been well and truly Westminsterised, even to the extent of the forced closure of the Cross Party Group on Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Perhaps the Canon would like to join the only current platform for discussion of the issues he wants to see addressed? www.youscotland.com and its members would welcome his input.

A grassroots organisation is the way ahead - the previous Constitutional Convention was too top-down and the political innovations that it proposed, by way of Cross Party Groups and the Petitions Committee, have been well and truly Westminsterised, even to the extent of the forced closure of the Cross Party Group on Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

Perhaps the Canon would like to join the only current platform for discussion of the issues he wants to see addressed?

www.youscotland.com and its members would welcome his input.

It sounds like a good idea. However, I can see a few problems with this suggestion. Firstly, the Whigs obviously do not believe in democracy, so there is little likelihood that they would either agree to this suggestion, or pay any attention to it. Secondly, why should it be limited to devolved areas? The Scottish people have every right to inform their representatives of their views on every aspect affecting their lives; from devolved matters to illegal wars. Finally, politicians being politicians, what chance is there that they would pay any heed to the views of the people? Maybe the SNP will be different, but the New Labour numpties certainly paid to heed to the views of the people, and the Whigs just do not believe in democracy.

It sounds like a good idea. However, I can see a few problems with this suggestion.

Firstly, the Whigs obviously do not believe in democracy, so there is little likelihood that they would either agree to this suggestion, or pay any attention to it.

Secondly, why should it be limited to devolved areas? The Scottish people have every right to inform their representatives of their views on every aspect affecting their lives; from devolved matters to illegal wars.

Finally, politicians being politicians, what chance is there that they would pay any heed to the views of the people? Maybe the SNP will be different, but the New Labour numpties certainly paid to heed to the views of the people, and the Whigs just do not believe in democracy.

The Lib Dums are opposed to this referendum because their Labour masters say so.

Great idea. But [italic][bold]who[/bold][/italic] does this Keynon is the key question? Leave it to the parly or executive and they will sabotage it - just like they did to the now defunct [italic]Scottish Civic Forum -.[/italic] essentially the same idea but offline. Lets just do it outseves - no government grants, no advance recognition, just force it upon them through the clever using free or near interactve tools all downloadled for nought . No Scottish Executve secondees or usless IT support workers ( the duffers even they dont want) are required. Weve already made a start at [bold]www.youscotland.com[/bold] but something more all embracing is needed. But technially what's on this site is about all that is needed, and all doen for free or next to free. Good thinking Keynon, but let's dump old left notions that this has to be done with state approval and a Government grant. It doesn't. And even if they offered, we should turn down their money or any advance approval. We should set the terms of engagement, not them. Government money near alwasy coems with string. And as et Civic Forum has show, what is given can be taken away

Great idea. But who does this Keynon is the key question? Leave it to the parly or executive and they will sabotage it - just like they did to the now defunct Scottish Civic Forum -. essentially the same idea but offline.

Lets just do it outseves - no government grants, no advance recognition, just force it upon them through the clever using free or near interactve tools all downloadled for nought . No Scottish Executve secondees or usless IT support workers ( the duffers even they dont want) are required.

Weve already made a start at www.youscotland.com but something more all embracing is needed. But technially what's on this site is about all that is needed, and all doen for free or next to free.

Good thinking Keynon, but let's dump old left notions that this has to be done with state approval and a Government grant. It doesn't. And even if they offered, we should turn down their money or any advance approval. We should set the terms of engagement, not them. Government money near alwasy coems with string. And as et Civic Forum has show, what is given can be taken away

I think we can learn a lot from the past in terms of the Constitutional Convention, but we also have to remember that much of its work and most certainly what became of its outcomes, was manipulated heavily by political parties. The Claim of Right however is tremendously powerful and its opening statements essentially declare the right of the people to shape the future, that the sovereignity in Scotland lies with the people and not the monarchy or Parliament. If we lived up to this statement, then there is no need for a new convention to seek to be officially sanctioned by political parties, in or out of government. The suggestions by the YouScotland group that it should be independent and accept no public funds,etc, are very powerful and need to be taken on board. We should also, and no disrespect is intended here, ask why Canon Wright should feel that he has some sort of leadership role in this space. Quite how such a group can emerge and how it manages issues such as spokespeople, etc, is going to be interesting. And yes, let's not forget Civic Scotland and how it was abandoned by the Executive.

I think we can learn a lot from the past in terms of the Constitutional Convention, but we also have to remember that much of its work and most certainly what became of its outcomes, was manipulated heavily by political parties. The Claim of Right however is tremendously powerful and its opening statements essentially declare the right of the people to shape the future, that the sovereignity in Scotland lies with the people and not the monarchy or Parliament. If we lived up to this statement, then there is no need for a new convention to seek to be officially sanctioned by political parties, in or out of government.

The suggestions by the YouScotland group that it should be independent and accept no public funds,etc, are very powerful and need to be taken on board. We should also, and no disrespect is intended here, ask why Canon Wright should feel that he has some sort of leadership role in this space. Quite how such a group can emerge and how it manages issues such as spokespeople, etc, is going to be interesting. And yes, let's not forget Civic Scotland and how it was abandoned by the Executive.

Incidentally, as a LibDem member, perhaps the good Canon could epxend some of his energy on his party leaders and getting them to "walk the talk" of the new politics!

Gregor Addison.

Democracy is just an illusion, so don't hold your breath.

And who do you think you are, that the Lib-Dems or anyone else should jump to your requests? Alex Salmond?

Transparent, I don't recall asking anyone to jump to my requests. I asked why the hostility to referendums? I pointed out that conventions allow only those who hold position in society to have a say. Anyway, what are you so touchy about? To you democracy is an illusion.

Transparent,

I don't recall asking anyone to jump to my requests. I asked why the hostility to referendums? I pointed out that conventions allow only those who hold position in society to have a say. Anyway, what are you so touchy about? To you democracy is an illusion.

Here at Edinburgh University we ran a very successful online forum called Holyrood2007 ([bold]www.holyrood2007.net[/bold] ). This was an avowedly apolitical platform that gave very full information about all candidates, for all parties, as well as having a full news service (local and national), daily polls, candidate videos, a vote navigator and also some vital tools that informed citizens about the electoral process, including the ballot paper! Our motivation was not advancing the goals of any one party but rather fundamental research about the Scottish electoral process, and how parties, candidates and citizens use new technologies. If an online forum for Scotland is deployed, the apolitical status is non-negotiable. Equally important is a design that is both easy to use but also sufficiently sophisticated so as to produce outputs that can guide policy development.

Here at Edinburgh University we ran a very successful online forum called Holyrood2007 (www.holyrood2007.net ). This was an avowedly apolitical platform that gave very full information about all candidates, for all parties, as well as having a full news service (local and national), daily polls, candidate videos, a vote navigator and also some vital tools that informed citizens about the electoral process, including the ballot paper!

Our motivation was not advancing the goals of any one party but rather fundamental research about the Scottish electoral process, and how parties, candidates and citizens use new technologies.

If an online forum for Scotland is deployed, the apolitical status is non-negotiable. Equally important is a design that is both easy to use but also sufficiently sophisticated so as to produce outputs that can guide policy development.

I was never that sure of this idea of 'the people' deciding through these forums. Who has a scheme that beats representative democracy, where 'the people' elect representatives to act on their behalf. Why should this take second place to a small and self-selecting group who are not elected and may be no more representative of the views of the people than any other randon small group? Plus my impression of the civic forum is that, yes it received little support, but there was also very little public enthusiasm. Same goes for petitions - dominated by a very small number of individuals getting one or two signatures.

Whilst the suggestion of a people's chamber is to be applauded, it will not stop the rot of a political elite devoid of any empathy for ordinary people unless the chamber is given real power. What we need is a chamber where the politicians are forced to engage with ordinary people on the issues of the day, not one where they pretend to listen for a few hours for the PR. The only way to force politicians to engage, is to give the chamber real power so that politicians simply can't get their business through without convincing the members of the chamber, without taking seriously their concerns, and paradoxically, through the chamber convincing the public of their (presumed) good intentios.

Whilst the suggestion of a people's chamber is to be applauded, it will not stop the rot of a political elite devoid of any empathy for ordinary people unless the chamber is given real power.

What we need is a chamber where the politicians are forced to engage with ordinary people on the issues of the day, not one where they pretend to listen for a few hours for the PR.

The only way to force politicians to engage, is to give the chamber real power so that politicians simply can't get their business through without convincing the members of the chamber, without taking seriously their concerns, and paradoxically, through the chamber convincing the public of their (presumed) good intentios.

Herald & Times Group
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2008 A Gannett Company