robin1234

It literally has. A high proportion of the US population seems to think that the world has stood still since the eighteenth century, and the US has no particular need to upgrade to the twenty first century. Much less flexible than the UK situation.

Novocastrian

No, not literally. I think you're confusing the 2nd Amendment with the Constitution itself. I don't believe you can have failed to note that in the last 200 years US history has not been static.

Moreover, when I suggested considering a written constitution for the UK, I wasn't suggesting it model itself on the US one.

The German one or the Canadian one perhaps, but certainly not that one.

Sally Redux

What Robin says rings true for me. There are forces which see the constitution as a rigid formula. Hence things like opposition to electoral reform, which is sorely needed. 'The Founding Fathers said' is a litany.

I guess I'm just saying that I would have been in favour of one before moving there.

Novocastrian

I'm not disagreeing with that. It's not relevant to the subject under discussion though. Your disillusionment with written constitutions in general is traceable to your having, like me, spent too long in America.

The point of all this is that, if the UK is going to change its governance structure, something that seems increasingly probable, then it'll have to be put in writing in a way which is both solid and flexible in well defined ways.

The next bit is directed more at Editha than you, specifically her concern that an English Assembly/Parliament would dominate a UK/federal one.

The solution to that would have to be codified and my suggestion would be to have perhaps five or six Regional Assemblies instead, each with equal weight and powers, with the usual Federal powers reserved for a Federal UK Parliament.