Archbishop of Canterbury singularly unsuited to leading a Citizens’ Assembly
I am surprised that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been suggested to lead a Citizens’ Assembly on the vexed issue of Brexit. He has been unable to unite the divisive factions in his own established church, far less the myriad conflicting sects that characterise Christianity.
The idea that the leader of an institution followed by only 1 per cent of young Britons and completely out of touch on a raft of social issues could play any sort of moral, political leadership or unification role in a country where the majorities of every political persuasion oppose religious interference in politics is odd to say the least.
Within the Westminster bubble the Archbishop, with his special House of Lords bench and access to other institutional privilege, may be seen as such a figure, but outside of it – and not least in Scotland – most people will be angered at the suggestion. ALISTAIR MCBAY
Lawmuirview, Methven, Perth
What exactly can a Citizens’ Assembly achieve that the Scottish parliament cannot do itself (your report, 28 August)?
A close examination of the remit and terms of reference does not just reveal a complex challenge for its participants on the constitution and the challenges of Brexit. It reveals a fairly restrictive code which obliges the Assembly to come up with recommendations that are “relevant to its remit, based on evidence heard by the Assembly” and, pointedly, “capable of being put into practice”.
The parliament would be obliged to act on its recommendations within 90 days, although exactly what action seems to be vague.
The recommendations would have to be concrete and unambiguous if the process of implementingthemwasnotto be bogged down in Holyrood bureaucracy. The potential for further cynicism about the political process is very real.
The very fact that a Citizens’ Assembly is becoming part of the body politic reflects more than an enthusiasm to learn from what has happened in other countries. It reflects a failure of our already cumbersome system of representation. In the last five years I have voted in two council byelections, a local government election, two referendums, two general elections, two European parliament elections and a Scottish parliament election.
It might be argued that we need an Assembly to break the logjam and the seemingly endless cycle of inaction. But surely it would only work if people were convinced that it would not simply become just part of that oversized democratic pyramid. The political parties which have agreed to take part cannot give an assurance that they would meekly introduce any proposals from it.
Now that two of them – the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats – have said they will not encourage participation, the potential for friction is likely to increase. For better or worse we should be using our large number of existing representatives more effectively if we are to sort out the constitutional malaise.
BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes