If the people continue to be denied a referendum is it possible direct action could follow? Remember the fuel protests?

Maybe this is what the politicians need and richly deserve to shake them up. The EU is a corrupt and dishonest organisation who seek to mislead and are not representing the people as they should

The whole political structure has been corrupted and it is time the people spoke with a resonence which shakes all politicians to their core.

It is surely time to take stock. The year has given us a new, independence-minded Government in Scotland that appears to be more social democratic than New Labour has ever been. It has given us a new Prime Minister in London who appears to be at least as neoliberal as his predecessor. And it has given us more talk of constitutional change than at any time in the last 60 years.

Despite politically motivated attempts to squeeze the Scottish Government by restricting the block grant, it is likely to continue to follow the path of social democracy, simply because that is the most popular path in Scotland. For all his talk about addressing inequality, Gordon Brown is likely to continue down the neoliberal road, partly because that seems to be the “centre ground” in England, but also because he has always been wedded to the economic growth paradigm, which is at the heart of neoliberalism. As for constitutional change, so long as the current UK “constitution” (because by any modern standards it is not a proper constitution) is in the hands of politicians, they will tinker with it for party political advantage and we will end up with an unfinished job.

While it would a great step in the right direction to have a proper modern constitution that reflects the attitudes and conditions of the 21st Century (see www.constitutionalcommission.org, for example), I do not think that this would be enough by itself to lift our four countries out of their current malaise. Although many readers will be familiar with it, it is worth restating the depressing litany. We are one of the most unequal places in the so-called “developed world”. Mental and emotional illness is now at record levels. Family and social breakdown are endemic. Much of England is overcrowded and congested. We pay lip service to environmental concerns. We are the most “big brothered” place in the world, in terms of CCTV and other forms of micromanagement. And we still act as if we were the imperial power of Victorian times, sending weapons and soldiers to foreign places, where they cause murder and mayhem. The important point is that all this is getting worse, not better, and we really have to ask why.

I have long suspected that the overriding reason is that we consistently ignore the deeper, root causes of our problems. This is a huge subject for which there is not the space here. Suffice to say that one of the deeper root causes of most, if not all, our socio-economic problems is almost certainly the nature of our current “central purpose”. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the current central purpose of all four countries of the UK is economic growth in perpetuity. This seems to be the central purpose not just of society as a whole (GDP growth), but of companies (increased profits) and of individuals (“success” being equated with more money, property and things). The problem with this is that it gives us a very misleading impression. Consistent economic growth, stunning technological developments, and high levels of consumption indicate a “healthy” economy, so we believe we are “doing well”, but at the same time we have seen social and environmental decline and a general deterioration in the quality of life. I would call that part of the picture “doing badly”, yet how many of us, I wonder, make the causal connection between the “doing well” and the “doing badly”? It would not be so bad if economic growth was merely a means to better ends. But I believe that it has become the end itself. This is very evident whenever there is a conflict between growth or profit or financial considerations, on the one hand, and considerations such as health, happiness, social cohesion, or the survival of this planet, on the other hand. Economic considerations nearly always take precedence. That is a collision course with disaster.

It is not for me to say what a society’s new central purpose should be – societies as a whole have to decide that – but I can tell you what my preference is. It would to “nurture human growth and development, to support human learning in the broadest possible sense; to foster wisdom, creativity, and love; to create a home for humanity within nature that nourishes all life.”

I think it is significant that many organisations (e.g. www.rprogress.org ) and at least one country, Bhutan (www.grossinternantionalhappiness.org ) are moving consciously in this direction. Is it too much to hope that our four closely linked countries can do something similar?

In today’s Guardian, Ian MacWhirter writes: “Where the SNP proposal falls down is not in its open-mindedness, which is quite sincere, but in the way its national conversation is to be conducted. It is being offered as a kind of consultation exercise with no clear destination or procedure. It is not clear what happens at the end of it, nor who will decide how the results of the

consultation are to be assessed. This is important because the 1989 cross-party Scottish constitutional convention, which led the last national conversation about devolution, had the authority to draft a constitutional blueprint which became the Scottish parliament. There is no comparable body to conduct the task this time. The SNP govern alone, and Alex Salmond will decide what the conversation means.”

I agree completely. The key unanswered question is who has the authority to set clear goals for the process, to analyse and interpret the results, and shape the response. There needs to be a clear destination and procedure, with an explicit process for deciding how the results of any “national conversation” to be assessed. And although Alex Salmond is clearly the man of the moment in Scotland today, not even he is able to decide what the “conversation” means nor how it should be conducted. Scotland is clearly at one of the most important crossroads in her history and the next few moves on the Scottish chessboard are far too important to be left to one man, however able, or to politicians alone or even to the government.

MacWhirter says that there is no current equivalent of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that led to devolution. That is not entirely true. There is a fledgling Scottish Constitutional Commission (www.constitutionalcommission.org), which has attracted support from some prominent citizens, including Helena Kennedy, Sir Bernard Crick, William McIllvanney, Bashir Maan and Neal Acherson. If broadcasting is considered important enough to merit a Broadcasting Commission, then surely the overriding issue, the constitution, is important enough to merit a Constitutional Commission.

There is a great deal of important work to be done. The Constitutional Commission could soon be in a position to fill the gaps that MacWhirter has highlighted. All we need is support from civic society and the media, as well as the nod of approval from the First Minister.