3 ms·

A pretty good starting point considering the USA constitution was based much off Scotland's enlightenment 200 years prior.

alephnerd 1y ago
The Scottish Enlightenment never took hold in much of the UK though. That's why America was so "revolutionary" for the 18th and 19th century. The British system remained paternalistic for a long time (eg. universal male suffrage only happened in 1918, collective bargaining was only legalized in 1945)
- ricardo81 1y ago
  It definitely took hold. It was an act of political union, albeit the democratic vote was heavily biased towards a larger English population, but the Scottish influence is imprinted in UK law, US law and any ex-colony. The works of Adam Smith and David Hume arguably shaped the modern capitalist world which India is part of and branched off from. Maybe there are nuanced arguments why it's less of a democracy, but I'm fairly sure nowadays every democracy has similar arguments.
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    But from a judicial standpoint, most of the strengthening around civil liberties as mentioned in the Scottish Enlightenment only happened in the 20th century. Indian (and Malaysian and Singaporean) jurisprudence largely forked off from British jurisprudence in the 1940s-1960. A number of the reforms in jurisprudence that happened post-WW2 weren't incorporated in the judicial codes for most colonies at that point, so judicial norms remain paternalistic. > Scottish influence is imprinted in UK law, US law and any ex-colony In Canada sure (Scots were overrepresented in "anglophone" Canada), but not the rest of the Commonwealth.
    - ricardo81 1y ago
      You edited a bit but I appreciate your point and I'll defer to you as I don't know much about Indian Democracy or the behaviour of the current government. I suspect that the seed of self-determination has well and truly been planted though.

3 ms·

A pretty good starting point considering the USA constitution was based much off Scotland's enlightenment 200 years prior.

by ricardo81 1y ago

alephnerd 1y ago
The Scottish Enlightenment never took hold in much of the UK though. That's why America was so "revolutionary" for the 18th and 19th century. The British system remained paternalistic for a long time (eg. universal male suffrage only happened in 1918, collective bargaining was only legalized in 1945)
- ricardo81 1y ago
  It definitely took hold. It was an act of political union, albeit the democratic vote was heavily biased towards a larger English population, but the Scottish influence is imprinted in UK law, US law and any ex-colony. The works of Adam Smith and David Hume arguably shaped the modern capitalist world which India is part of and branched off from. Maybe there are nuanced arguments why it's less of a democracy, but I'm fairly sure nowadays every democracy has similar arguments.
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    But from a judicial standpoint, most of the strengthening around civil liberties as mentioned in the Scottish Enlightenment only happened in the 20th century. Indian (and Malaysian and Singaporean) jurisprudence largely forked off from British jurisprudence in the 1940s-1960. A number of the reforms in jurisprudence that happened post-WW2 weren't incorporated in the judicial codes for most colonies at that point, so judicial norms remain paternalistic. > Scottish influence is imprinted in UK law, US law and any ex-colony In Canada sure (Scots were overrepresented in "anglophone" Canada), but not the rest of the Commonwealth.
    - ricardo81 1y ago
      You edited a bit but I appreciate your point and I'll defer to you as I don't know much about Indian Democracy or the behaviour of the current government. I suspect that the seed of self-determination has well and truly been planted though.