Roger Scruton (Wiltshire, philosopher): It is, I think, unprecedented for a PM to make reform of the constitution his first priority on entering office. It is reminiscent of continental politics, in which fragile coalitions, having scraped into office, promptly revise the constitution in order to stay there. I am therefore not happy that this is all happening now - although of course, a debate about the constitution, in which all parties can participate, and the goal of which would be a stable consensus, is very much needed, and Gordon Brown has the knowledge and imagination to lead it.
As for the specific proposals, I would point out that we have a Bill of Rights already (1689); we also have a highly controversial Human Rights Law which is upsetting all kinds of long-term and settled solutions to our indigenous conflicts; and I can be fairly sure that any Bill of Rights proposed will not bring back the rights that have been confiscated from my local community by the Labour government - notably the right to hunt and the right to gather in our cheerful smoke-filled pub, both of which are fundamental to our way of life; nor will it grant to my neighbours the right to an English Parliament or in any way make concessions to their visceral desire not to be governed any longer by moralising Scots.
I am not myself in favour of a written constitution, but it is undeniable that this has produced a kind of consensus in America that has greatly contributed to the countries stability - always remembering that the US Constitution is not just the original short document but also includes the 600 volumes of case law that it has spawned.
But let us see: if Mr Brown moves slowly and tentatively, so that his constitutional proposals are not rigid diktaats but invitations to discussion, maybe the results will be acceptable.
