...the independence Referendum took place in Scotland. It was an important decision for the brave Scots. Even if a slim majority voted against the independence of Scotland, more and more devolution states around Europe try to get independent. The latest example is Catalonia in Spain, where the Referendum will be on 9th of November. It is not necessary to say that there are more states which want to become independent. However the question is coming up: Why do these federal states want to become independent or why don’t they? What will happen to the rest states which are left? Let´s begin with the question of why states try to be independent? For this question we need of course to look at the advantages of getting independent. There we have to look in the first place at the economic situation in Spain or the political situation in Scotland. Spain is in a big financial crisis. They have an unstable economic system, because the banks invested too much money building new houses and renting them to people, who can´t effort it. So they lost all their money. Catalonia is the richest and economic most powerful state in Spain so if they got a nation on their own there would be a higher welfare. Another advantage would be the political self-destination as in Scotland. As a devolution state they can’t decide what they want to change in their own country, because all powers are in England. When the government in London says “No” to something they wanted to do, Scotland can’t change anything...
Words: 541 - Pages: 3
...ability to make someone do something that they would not do of their own free will * E.g - Coercion – the use of force to achieve ends – the military * Authority = the right to exercise power (based on the consent of those being ruled) * E.g - Legal/rational – HOC * E.g – Traditional – HOL Modern democracies have: Political tolerance Peaceful transition of power Free, fair and regular elections The government is accountable to the people The rule of law Freedom of the media Modern democracies have: Political tolerance Peaceful transition of power Free, fair and regular elections The government is accountable to the people The rule of law Freedom of the media What makes a government legitimate? * Referendums (‘Yes’ answers) * High turnout * Free, fair and regular elections * Lack of dissent * Displays of public support How legitimate is the UK? Legitimate | Not legitimate | * House of Commons is elected | * Electoral system unfair and distorts political representation (FPTP) | * Government elected with mandate to govern | * Every government elected has only achieved the minority of the popular vote | * House of Lords has traditional authority and political influence is widely recognised | * House of Lords members are not elected and so do not have the people’s consent | Direct democracy: * The people themselves directly make the important decisions which affect them * The people are directly...
Words: 2392 - Pages: 10
...Explain the term referendum used in the extract (5 marks) A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision. They may be used to raise issues for discussion rather than to decide or confirm policy questions. In relation to the extract, Walsi is being accused of not having the knowledge base of understanding of actual independence. Walsi was being accountable for shortfall in any economic growth expected and being able to financially match the living needs of people, the needs of all generations - from health / population growth. 05) Using your own knowledge, as well as the extract, consider the circumstances in which the UK government might choose to call a referendum (10 marks) Only one nationwide referendum had taken place in the UK before the alternative referendum. This occurred in 1975 when Harold Wilson (the British Prime minister at the time) asked ‘Do you think the UK should stay in the EU?’ In answer to his question, 67% of the voters answered ‘yes’ so therefore the UK is still part of the EU today. Not only one referendum has happened, several referendums have also been held in particular regions of the UK such as Scotland and Wales. In 1997, voters in Scotland were asked whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament while voters in Wales were asked whether they wanted a Welsh Assembly. The answer to both of these referendums was yes. Also, just recently: - Scotland has been called...
Words: 1280 - Pages: 6
...UK there has been debate that Britain’s democracy is flawed. The voting system is unfair and recent expenses scandal exposed just how many politicians do not respect the position they are given. One of the main factors to argue there is a democratic deficit in the UK is the low levels of voter turnout and widespread discouragement with the FPTP system. In 2001 the UK received a general election turnout of 59.4%, the lowest since the start of universal suffrage in 1918. Low turnouts in elections will weaken the electoral mandate of the party and the legitimacy of the government, and if citizens are not participating in politics the decisions made by government are no longer in the interest of the whole nation. For instance the 2011 AV referendum got a turnout of just 42.2% so it would not accurate to base this result on a decision that will affect the whole country, when fewer than half of the population voted. Some suggest that the elections in the UK are not fair due to the “First Past the Post” voting system. The FPTP system favours two parties (the Labour and Conservative party) and this means that there is a reduced chance of smaller parties winning constituencies. In the 2010 general election the Labour party got 29% of the vote and gained 258 seats, whereas the Liberal Democrats won 23% of the votes but secured 57 seats. This shows how FPTP discriminates against smaller “3rd” parties like the Liberal Democrats who have a widespread but low concentration of support so are...
Words: 571 - Pages: 3
...foreigners and slaves were excluded from voting. Now days many countries with representative democracies allow forms of direct democracy through referendums, initiative and recall. There are many benefits to direct democracy, including promoting a democratic and well-cooperated society. People have power and a say, and this opinion needs to be listened to by the government in order to please the citizens. It also provides a responsibility of the government to the people, all people have this power of a vote, and the government needs to listen to peoples concerns, as the politicians and the government will be held responsible for the well being of the people. Referendums are a form of direct democracy, and have been used in the UK many times, with the most recent being the Scottish referendum, allowing the people of Scotland to decide if they wanted to remain a part of the UK. One argument against the use of more referendums would be that the general public are not always as educated in the decision as a representative may be, this could lead to people making irrational decisions, as they are not informed enough on the topic. This issue tends to lead to the media (especially tabloids) over simplifying the issue, which many argue gives these owners and editors of these newspapers far too much influence in the potential outcome of the referendum. Therefore many would argue that these matters should be left...
Words: 692 - Pages: 3
...Since 1997 England’s uncodified constitution has seen a significant amount of change. Westminster has devolved some of its power, an Act protecting and stating human rights has been established and a referendum is due to be held in 2014 on whether or not Scotland should have a codified constitution. While one could argue that discussions as to whether the upper house should be elected or appointed have not yet reached a decision, and it has taken over a decade for a devolved assembly to have the chance to be independent, it would appear that constitutional changes have gone as far as they are ever going to, however it ... gone far enough. Parts of the British political system were seen as undemocratic, especially during Labour’s terms in office in the late 1990’s, in particular the House of Lords (HOL). The Labour government set out to remove all hereditary peers in 1999; instead they abolished all but 92 and now promoted life peers as an alternative. Many Lords and Ladies are offered a place in the HOL either for service, such as previous MP’s, or due to their particular knowledge in a field, such as Alan Sugar as he has a vast amount of knowledge in business. However this was the last reform made, no more hereditary peers have been abolished, the question on whether or not to make the upper house elected is still on-going and previous conservative MP’s still hold more seats than any other party thus making the HOL unrepresentative and undemocratic. Therefore many argue this...
Words: 2489 - Pages: 10
...After the Labour party’s strong victory in the 1997 general election, winning 179 seats, they have made moves and provisions towards constitutional reform. Indeed, the two prime ministers; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done much for reform over the years, as illustrated by devolution and the human rights act. Indeed, they made provision for reform in 4 key areas, modernisation, and greater protection of rights, democratisation and decentralisation. However, it can be argued that their reform has been limited, and much more can be done for constitutional reform. Firstly, it is clear that the modernisation aspects of the reform have been severely limited. Indeed, this can be illustrated by the reform of the House of Lords. Over the past 10 years, only part 1 of the reform process has taken place. This has included the removal of over 600 hereditary peers to only 92. However, no reform for a partially or fully elected second chamber has taken place. Until this happens it is argued that the Lords is not democratically legitimate as all policy making institutions must have legitimacy. By merely appointing the members of the Lords means that whilst they may have expertise, they are not socially accountable. These include the likes of Alan Sugar and Sebastian Coe. Also, the Wright report, which includes provisions towards electing members of select committee chairs by secret ballot, and to end the Winterton rule on public bill committees is still stuck within the legislative process...
Words: 1073 - Pages: 5
...A constitution is a set of principles, which may be codified or uncodified, that establishes the distribution of power within, that establishes the distribution of power within, a political institution. They limit government jurisdiction the rights of citizens and the method of amending the constitution itself. The UK Constitution is uncodified which means the UK constitution is not organised into singular document, but written in alternative ways for example a Convention. I will talk about the following factors, Executive Power, Modernisation and Flexibility which is the way ill assess the UK’s Constitution Executive Power is a strength of the UK Constitution, due to the UK Constitution being unwritten and uncodified the government can be more powerful and decisive easier as they do have to follow a strict set of rules. For example the 1997 Government rearranged the House of Lords with reforms this was quickly done and this was due to the UK not having a constitution. However, the liberals state that not having a constitution and having a strong government threatens the individual rights, the position of minorities and the influence of public opinion. For example Tony Blair decided in 2005 to declare war on Iraq without consulting the people this led to backlash from the public and protests. However, the General Elections is to choose a representative, one of the perks of having a representative is they can use their specialist knowledge to make decisions on the public’s behalf...
Words: 696 - Pages: 3
...Constitutional reform is a process whereby the fundamental nature of the system of government is changed or where a change is proposed. In the UK this may also involve the process of codification. Since 1997 there have been many key reforms that have impacted on the UK whether it makes the country more democratic or even undemocratic. The first reform is the reform of the House of Lords, this was were the voting rights of most hereditary peers were abolished. The Blair government subsequently passed the House of Lords Act 1999, on 7th November 2001 the government undertook a public consultation. This helped to create a public debate on the issue of Lords reform. In 2010 all three main parties promised to take action on the Lords reform in the 2010 general election, this was then followed up by the House Of Lords Reform Bill 2012, however this Bill was abandoned by the Government on 6th August 2012 following opposition from within the Conservative Party. A successful attempt to pursue minor reform of the House was made on 14 May 2014 when the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 gained Royal Assent. The original idea of abolishing voting rights of most hereditary peers, makes the UK less democratic rather than more democratic. This is due to the House Of Lords as a whole being an unelected chamber and therefore makes it undemocratic, however by removing the hereditary rights of some peers makes it less undemocratic as they are born into it at birth and not voted in. So this reform...
Words: 996 - Pages: 4
... A referendum is a form of direct democracy that involves a public vote on a single issue of public policy. It is a way of presenting a debated issue to public decision. The most recent referendum was in the UK; the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum which asked the question whether Scotland should break away from the UK or not. There are a variety of arguments both for and against the wider use of referendum in the UK. The use was greatly favoured by Tony Blair and his new Labour government in 1997 because they took the view that referendum was a democratic device that allows people the opportunity to give a direct voice in decision making. Therefore, any decision made via referendum acquires legitimacy because it has popular approval. Moreover, referendums can encourage political participation which will help the declining participation of the UK in the way that as referendums are where people can get directly involve in the decision making, they will see this as opportuniy to contribute to the political world as themselves, thereby encouraging them to turn out in election to vote and increase participation like in the 2014 Scottish referendum where the participation brough about a turnout of 84.59% compared to the 2010 general election turnout of 65.1%. Shown clearly in the example is the clear difference between participation of direct democracy and representative democracy which would greatly benefit the UK's declining political participation. Referendums can...
Words: 1067 - Pages: 5
...DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY IN INDIA INTRODUCTION * The Directive Principles of State Policy, embodied in Part IV of the constitution, are directions given to the central and state governments to guide the establishment of a just society in the country. According to the constitution, the government should keep them in mind while framing laws, even though they are non-justiciable in nature. Directive Principles are classified under the following categories: Gandhian, social, economic, political, administrative, legal, environmental, protection of monuments, peace and security. * Article 36 to 51 of the Constition of India embodies the Directive Principles of State policy and for these we are indebted to the Constitution of Ireland. The objective is to establish a social and economic democracy in India * Article 37 reveals that : 1. The Directive Principles are not justiciable 2. They are Fundamental in the governance of the country 3. It shall be the duty of the State to apply these Directive Principles while formulating policies or making laws for the governance of the State CLASSIFICATION * Socialist Principles * Liberal Principles * Gandhian Principles * International principles SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES * Article 38 of the Constitution of India shall endeavour to formulate such social system which will secure social, economic and political justice to all in all the spheres of life. * Article 39(a) the state shall...
Words: 872 - Pages: 4
...voter can take part in reaching a decision. The most obvious modern version is referendum where people vote “yes” or “no” to a specific question. Switzerland holds referendum at least three times a year to make the most important decisions even though they elect a parliament which is left to minor decisions. However, they hardly ever take place in the UK (the last one was in 1975), normally only at a time of constitutional change or when the issue is serious and based on public opinion. One argument in favour of a greater use of direct democracy would be that direct democracy is the purest form of democracy and reflects perfectly the view of all the citizenry. There is not a difference between the people and the government and the people can shape their society accurately. However, direct democracy is impractical in a large society with 45 million voters. The amount of money and time that referendums take is not suitable for urgent decisions. Another argument to support the use of direct democracy would be that it prevents politicians from going beyond their power when making decisions and it would increase legitimacy as the government is getting direct consent from the people through such methods such as referendums. Nevertheless, direct democracy could lead to the majority discriminating against a minority or there might be "voters fatigue" and there might be low turnouts in elections and referendums and so it might lack legitimacy. For example there was a 34% turnout to whether...
Words: 567 - Pages: 3
...governed. The UK’s constitution is part-written and uncodified. There is evidence the UK’s constitution is strong and successful, however there is evidence to also suggest that the UK needs constitutional reform. One huge advantage of the UK constitution is its ability to be flexible and change according to modern opinions or issues. An uncodified or unfixed constitution like the UK’s allows it to me able to keep updated with new social and political situations. It easier to create an Act of Parliament according to a new situation, than to amend a codified constitution. For example, in reaction to this idea of ‘new politics’ and the public’s desire to be able to influence the government between elections, lead to the introduction of referendums in 1997. The UKs democracy has withstood the tale of time and is seen as a huge strength of the UK’s constitution. The UK’s constitution is an example of the UK’s custom and tradition linking generations and has been tested in history to prove that it works. The constitution has adapted and developed over time: it is a ‘living’ constitution due to the idea that it is able to grow. In despite of parliamentary sovereignty, there are a number of ways in which the democratic character of the UK is maintained and the power of the government scrutinized and reduced where necessary. For instance, the House of Lords and judges were reduced in number through Parliamentary Acts due to growing unrest about the influence of unelected official’s...
Words: 754 - Pages: 4
...consent or legitimacy to govern on behalf of the public. 2. A Referendum can be held on Constitutional issues/changes if any changes alter the relationship between different parts of the state (e.g. devolution), or between citizens and the state such as the devolution referendum in 1979 where most Scots voted “yes” but 40% needed was not reached and it was unfavourable in Wales. Also, when there is a history of conflict and an agreement is to be made. Furthermore, If our representatives are unable to come to a decision about an issue or ff the govt feel that there will be much discontentment amongst the public if a decision is made without their consent, i.e. an issue that the people have strong opinions on, such as the EU referendum that is going to take place by the end of 2017. 3. The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK means that referendums cannot be binding although it would be very difficult for governments to ignore the results of official referendums. Several important arguments have been raised in support of the increased use of referendums. It is argued that although full direct democracy may be impractical and inefficient in modern, large scale, complex societies the use of referendums is an important mechanism for the provision of some direct democracy which can increase citizens’ active participation in and understanding of political questions. In general referendums are said to enhance the legitimacy and acceptability...
Words: 1032 - Pages: 5
...To what extent do referendums strengthen democracy in the UK? Democracy is defined in Greek as government by the people. Referendums are undermining of the authority given to the people through a representative. The use of referendums in the UK allows for an increased participation from the electorate. This encourages direct democracy and therefore strengthens the basic principle of a democratic governing body. However, participation is a key part of the strengthening of democracy. In recent years we have seen a growth in the number of referendums held in the UK. Referendums are usually held to conclude on an important issue, such as devolution and issues regarding the changing of a constitutional law. It has become increasingly problematic that there has been a decline in the turn-out for referendums, a clear example of this is the Welsh national; assembly referendum held in 2011. The turnout for the Welsh national assembly referendum was 33%, with a 65% voting in favour of further devolved powers for the assembly. Although the vote was a majority decision 67% of the electorate did not vote, which undermines the result and therefore democracy is weakened without active participation by the electorate. As mentioned, the Welsh assembly referendum resulted in 67% of the electorate not voting, which means that these individuals will still get a devolved set of powers. Therefore unless you have a 100% turnout a referendum will forever be undemocratic. This can be described...
Words: 558 - Pages: 3
