The Gnp Should Support A Second Independence Referendum

Elective Dictatorship is the term used to describe the government and the Prime minister to be seen as having powers over the country that seem excessive. A government appointing as an elected dictatorship is likely to have a large majority over all other parties in the House of Commons. This essay will analise the arguments for and against the UK having an elected dictatorship. It will conclude that a proper dictatorship is never possible because the UK’s constitution is a democratic one and there are counter balances to accessive Prime ministerial powers. However when a government has a very large majority it can use its control over the House of Commons to make decisions that can seem to some as being dictatorial.

A secondary way in which parliamentary sovereignty in the UK can be seen to be moving is though the introduction of devolution which is challenging the UK parliament’s sovereignty. The UK is a unitary state, so only one body can in theory

While SMP has its faults, there is a reason that provinces have not voted in favour of electoral reform. One of

A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.

Scottish Independence - Good or Bad Scotland is at a turning point. The 300-year old Union is some say no longer fit for purpose. Some say it was never designed for the 21st century world and it is well past it's sell by date and is holding Scotland back. The Scottish people voted to move forward, with a new, more Scottish approach from an SNP government. But many oppose these views saying that Scotland needs the rest of the UK and that the economic and social problems caused by independence would be catastrophic to the relationships between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In any case the government has published a white paper setting out a vision of independence and responsibility in the modern world. But is this idea beneficial to our country?

Although complete sovereignty wasn’t lost over Scotland, the NO vote did cause parliament to devolve some power it held. This is not the first time sovereignty has been lost through Scottish referendums. In 1998 the Scottish parliament was re-established: The Scotland Act established what matters were to be devolved and what matters were to be reserved by Parliament. Devolved matters included health and social care (for example free nursing care for the elderly) and education (for example tuition fees). Reserved matters included defence, foreign policy and the constitution (the UK still controls Scottish independence, as it has the power to over-rule the referendums) Theoretically, Westminster could repeal the Scottish acts. This imbalance of power can cause some policy divergence, for example Scotland passed a law banning smoking in public places before the UK.

The centrepiece of Labour 's programme of constitutional reform was undoubtedly devolution. This was achieved with remarkably few problems. There now seems no likelihood that the new arrangements could be reversed, even by a Conservative administration. The election on 6 May 1999 of a Parliament in Scotland, with extensive powers of primary legislation as well as tax-raising, and an Assembly in Wales, with powers of secondary legislation only, will have a profound impact on governance within the UK. In

Within the United Kingdom, a recurring issue has been raised regarding the political position of Scotland and how the Scottish Parliament could better govern the country. To establish whether the quality of life could be improved for the Scottish people, key events, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament must be evaluated and analysed. The argument for greater power in decision making and the ability to implement change for the citizens of Scotland, has been central to Scottish politics for some time.

Moreover, even when looking at the people who did vote and the outcome which was achieved, referendums can never truly represent everyone and meet society’s needs as a whole. This is because although a majority of people voted a certain way, there is usually a very slim margin between this and the

Scottish devolution was defeated in the referendum and the two biggest parties campaigned for “No”. The SNP considered the results as a victory for devolution but was against the referendum as they were campaigning about the complete independence.

The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing

“Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute” (Lord Hope). Discuss with reference to at least three challenges to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty is the concept that Parliament has the power to repeal, amend or create any law it wishes and therefore no body in the UK can challenge its legal validity. There are many people who would argue that this is a key principle to the UK Constitution, on the other hand, there are those who strongly believe that this idea is one of the past, and that the idea of the UK Parliament being sovereign is false. One of these people is Lord Hope, who said “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute”. During the last 50 years there have been a variety of developments that have proved to be a challenge for the legitimacy of parliamentary sovereignty, and the ones which will be examined in this essay are: the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament; The United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union in 1973; and finally the power of judicial review. Starting with the devolution of powers, these challenges will all be evaluated when discussing whether or not the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty applies to the United Kingdom. Westminster’s sovereignty has been gradually diminishing over time as varying amounts of power have been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In this essay, the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament will be

The origin of Devolution can be traced to Donald Campbell Dewar (21 August 1937 – 11 October 2000). He is generally referred to as the ‘architect of Devolution’ as well as the ‘advocate for Scottish devolution’. And as such, he was elected Scotland’s first First minister in the 1999 election. As

The Act of Union of 1707 brought together the two independent nations of Scotland and England to create a new United Kingdom. This new Kingdom in the opinion of the English ensured political and military stability on the Island of Great Britain, neutralizing the Scottish MP’s by absorbing them into the Westminster system.

Willy Brandt once remarked:” Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide under the surrounding sea of dictatorship” (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1973, 2). It would seem that democratic governments have become increasingly unable of facing “the challenges of the modern world”. Specifically, democratic European governments have become increasingly incapable to adequately represent the interests of the governed, while economic growth has also produced forces within nations that could potentially lead to the potential “regression”(Crozier, 1973, 49-50) of European states from democracy into tyranny (Crozier, 1973, 49-50).