THAT ”UNWRITTEN” CONSTITUTION

MIA ONCE AGAIN HIGHLIGHTS HOW ENGLAND USES IT TO KEEP SCOTLAND DOWN ILLEGALLY AND IN BREACH OF OUR OWN CONSTITUTION AS OUTLINED IN THE CLAIM OF RIGHT. Here is a stupid question that I have been asking myself since the very first time I heard the words “unwritten constitution” with regards to 21st century UK:Continue reading "THAT ”UNWRITTEN” CONSTITUTION"

THAT ”UNWRITTEN” CONSTITUTION

MIA ONCE AGAIN HIGHLIGHTS HOW ENGLAND USES IT TO KEEP SCOTLAND DOWN ILLEGALLY AND IN BREACH OF OUR OWN CONSTITUTION AS OUTLINED IN THE CLAIM OF RIGHT.

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com


Here is a stupid question that I have been asking myself since the very first time I heard the words “unwritten constitution” with regards to 21st century UK:

how can something “unwritten” ever be qualified as a constitution in modern times?

The word “constitution”, meaning fundamental principles, implies something static. Something fixed that cannot be easily changed. Like an anchor that serves to keep everything in place. If it is flexible and constantly moving, as an unwritten constitution would imply, then it ceases to be meaningful as a series of fundamental principles.

So how do you keep track that something unwritten has not been changed unlawfully if you cannot compare present and past because you have no register to look, or a standard to measure the change against? How do you know what can never be changed or moved? How can you credibly claim you are adding, removing or even remember all what is supposed to be included in your constitution if it is not written anywhere?

How can the average voter know their rights under such “unwritten” constitution if they cannot read it anywhere?

A constitution cannot be the privy of a handful of lawyers and judges, because if that is the case then it is not a constitution, it becomes a work manual for which an updated version can be released with every government, and it will be thinner or thicker depending of the political party in government. That is not a constitution. It has to be the ownership of the people. Politicians cannot be dictating our constitution. Politicians’ actions should be grounded by that constitution.

I think you are spot on about the reason why this fudge of “unwritten constitution” was created. Perhaps this discrepancy between Scotland’s and England’s constitutions is the reason why Labour, the masters at deception when it comes to protect the union, promoted an English court to the post of “UK Supreme Court”. 

With such court, every time a constitutional confrontation between Scotland’s and England’s constitution happens, a veneer of legitimacy can be added to giving English law and English convention precedence over Scotland’s to diffuse the situation, exercise damage control and continue to cast aside the constitutional breach hoping the people of Scotland will not notice or forget quickly.

That is in my view what this court did in their ruling about triggering A50, about the Sewel convention and about Scotland’s continuity bill. I remember asking myself why on earth there were any English judges in the case of Scotland’s continuity bill. It was a matter exclusively of Scots law. A bill that was passed in Scotland’s parliament. There was absolutely no place, in my view, for any English judge there.

I thought the exact same when the triggering of A50 without Scotland’s consent was challenged in that court. In my opinion that was not for an English judge educated in English law and English convention to decide, but for an Scottish one versed in Scotland’s constitution. The way I see it, that court is not the “UK” supreme court, but England’s as the UK supreme court, and it will use English law with a majority of England judges over Scots ones, to silence Scots law at every opportunity.