This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/scottish-identity
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Scottish identity | Scottish identity |
| (6 months later) | |
| I agree with Elliot Bulmer (Response, 1 April) that a British constitution should be based on the principle of popular sovereignty, not parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, it would be pointless to enact a constitution unless the principle of parliamentary sovereignty were abandoned. The purpose of a constitution is to constrain parliament, not to allow it unlimited sway. | I agree with Elliot Bulmer (Response, 1 April) that a British constitution should be based on the principle of popular sovereignty, not parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, it would be pointless to enact a constitution unless the principle of parliamentary sovereignty were abandoned. The purpose of a constitution is to constrain parliament, not to allow it unlimited sway. |
| I also agree with him that most Scots identify as British and Scottish. But those choosing the separatist option in the 2014 referendum would be proclaiming that the two identities are incompatible, just as, when Ireland became independent in 1921, it signified that the identity of being Irish was incompatible with a British identity. So Mr Bulmer is wrong to say that an independent Scotland would still be, in any serious sense, British. It would be a sign that the Scots had repudiated their British identity. Vernon Bogdanor Professor of government, King's College, London | I also agree with him that most Scots identify as British and Scottish. But those choosing the separatist option in the 2014 referendum would be proclaiming that the two identities are incompatible, just as, when Ireland became independent in 1921, it signified that the identity of being Irish was incompatible with a British identity. So Mr Bulmer is wrong to say that an independent Scotland would still be, in any serious sense, British. It would be a sign that the Scots had repudiated their British identity. Vernon Bogdanor Professor of government, King's College, London |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version