La última encuesta bimensual propuesta por la Asociación para la Defensa de la Función Pública, sobre el sistema de selección de los miembros de los tribunales de oposiciones, ha tenido la mayor participación de todas las encuestas celebradas hasta la fecha, con 127 votos emitidos.
La mayor parte de las personas que han participado (más del 88%) han valorado dicho sistema como excesivamente discrecional. En este sentido, y con el fin de que dicha percepción desaparezca, la Asociación dirigió un escrito al Consejero de Presidencia, en ejercicio del derecho fundamental de petición consagrado en el artículo 29 de la Constitución, para que se implantase un sistema mucho más reglado y transparente.
A fecha de hoy ni siquiera se ha acusado recibo de tal petición.
Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
3 comentarios:
Es llamativo, por decirlo suavemente, el desdén que están mostrando todos los miembros del Gobierno con el ejercicio del derecho constitucional de petición.
Se han debido olvidar de que los poderes públicos están vinculados por los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y también deben de desconocer que el Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público establece como primera falta muy grave "el incumplimiento del deber de respeto a la Constitución".
Ellos verán si están dispuestos a modificar su irresponsable actitud y el desprecio a las normas democráticas que están poniendo de manifiesto con ella.
Creo que los ciudadanos desconocen las potencialidades del derecho de petición y la Administración no está acostumbrada a que nadie lo ejerza.
Habrá que agradecer, por eso, a esa Asociación que haya mostrado a unos y otros que los derechos fundamentales son una facultad que asiste a todo ciudadano, individual o colectivamente, para plantear demandas a los poderes públicos y éstos tienen la obligación de contestar, aunque sea acordanddo la inadmisión de la petición.
Aquí parece que ni eso se hace.
No parece muy coherente el Gobierno si crea una Dirección General de Participación Ciudadana y, sin embargo, no respete la ley en cuanto al ejercicio del derecho de petición de los ciudadanos. ¿Qué se pretende con ello? ¿Que la participación se haga como decida el Gobierno y no como posibilita la Constitución?
Publicar un comentario