When I was 17 I took AS level politics, it was possibly the most unpopular subject in school, my most abiding memory of this class was talking about constitutions. We went into great theoretical depth about the type and purpose of constitutions before discussing whether or not the UK should have one. Everyone just assumed that having a codified and entrenched constitution (aka written constitution) was a far off fantasy that served no real purpose; we hardly even bothered mooting the positives of such a document.
The Scottish independence referendum has made it abundantly clear that the UK will be changed forever. A central plank of the Yes campaign was the writing of a new constitution. The very fact that no one, on either side, questioned the need for an Independent Scotland to have a constitution shows that people in the UK aren’t uniquely incapable of grasping the case for a constitution but rather the fact that things seem to be OK right now so why bother? There is, simply put, no impetus for a UK constitution.
For hundreds of years the UK has muddled through with a plethora of bills, bits and pieces of legislation gathered from hither and thither and the odd royal prerogative thrown in for good measure and called it a constitution. The truth is that this system gives us as citizens very little protection and is unnecessarily convoluted precisely because it is spread so thinly over thousands of documents written over centuries. In addition to giving Scotland more powers David Cameron has promised to look at devolving powers across the rest of the UK, decentralising powers from London into new institutions. An English Parliament, regional and city assemblies have all been suggested as vessels of more devolution, but the truth is that, ultimately this will move Britain away from being a unitary state and towards a federal one.
In a federal state a codified constitution is of vital importance, not just to ensure the inalienable rights of all citizens, which is of course important, but also to delineate which institution gets which powers and prevent clashes between central and devolved governments. Already we have seen clashes between the UK and Scottish governments over who can do what.. A constitution delineating the rights of different legislatures, especially if different assemblies have different levels of powers, could prevent clashes between central and devolved governments.
While the level of engagement sparked by the referendum couldn’t hope to be replicated by the process of writing a constitution it could have very real implications for day to day life. If the majority of people feel that it is absolutely essential for the NHS to remain in public hands then why not constitutionally protect it from privitisation? The idea of a constitutional convention’ type process where ordinary people are the central part of that process may also dent the idea that politics in this country is necessarily a sort of “us v them” activity where a ‘Westminster elite’ conspires to disenfranchise the people.
Most nations write constitutions after revolutions or bloody upheavals where lots of people lose their lives but in the UK there is a very good chance that we are about to see power shift from the centre and it seems like an opportune moment to write ourselves a constitution peacefully. Traditionally there has been no desire for a written constitution as there has been no pressing need for one, even though the democratic advantages of a constitution are desirable. However, a UK wide devolutionary process could provide the catalyst as we restructure how we want the UK to look.
* Hamish Mackenzie is a Liberal Democrat member who works for a Liberal Democrat MP