But you know the Scottish Parliament itself cannot amend or change the Scotland Act. That can only be done by Westminster – and Westminster also has sovereignty in devolved areas. So I dunno, how could any constitution drawn up by the Scottish Parliament, even on the basis that it was limited only to areas where the Scottish Parliament has competence, actually have any force? To be meaningful a constitution surely has to have legal force? And it wouldn’t – and won’t until the Scottish Parliament has the power to give it that standing.

Whether or not I would vote for independence is likely to be strongly dependent on (a) whether there is a Constitution for Scotland drafted at all (if not, almost certainly voting No) and (b) If I like the Constitution drafted. (You know, in theory, a Constitution for Scotland could leave us worse off. Just saying.)

All of the undecided and most of the No supporters I’ve spoken to want a second Constitutional Convention. All of the doubts strongly expressed about having one at all before indyref have come from the Yes supporters. So my question is really: How do we get the Yes supporters on board with the idea that the Constitution will have to be fit for a devolved as well as an independent Scotland? This was the sticking point for the SNP last time. If the Yes supporters decide they won’t be part of a Constitutional Convention if it means they have to respect and engage with the views of those who support devolution, well, I think we’re probably screwed.

Devolution could come without the support of the SNP (and did).

I was wondering, after last nights Newsnight Scotland, how much detail was agreed and in place prior to the referendum in 1997 and how much came after the result..

You don’t need to wonder! The blueprint for devolution was worked out in considerable detail by the first Constitutional Convention, published 30th November 1995, and is available online: Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right.

You don’t need to wonder: you can read Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right, written by the first Constitutional Convention, published 30 November 1995.

All of the confirmed Yes supporters I’ve spoken to want a debate, if this is part of it then fine however how would the no camp become involved, would they? Do we just plough ahead without them and after the result say tough this is what’s going to happen, you had your chance prior to ref.

What level of detail is required, I was wondering, after last nights Newsnight Scotland, how much detail was agreed and in place prior to the referendum in 1997 and how much came after the result..

The more I think about it though, the more in favour I am. Ian Davidson’s hideous performance on Newsnicht last night was a good reminder that what we’re dealing with here. An ancient, creaking institution, versus a vision of a new future. I’d like to think any “soft” royalists would not pass up the opportunity just because they like the Queen. Similarly, perhaps many “soft” republicans would be happy enough to see the Queen retained, if it was stated clearly in the constitution that she has absolutely no actual power?

And, rather than debating about a debate, maybe we should just get on with having it.

“Constitutional matters” are reserved to Westminster. But getting the public involved with broad support is how we got our Scottish Parliament in the first place.

Technically, the Scottish Parliament can’t legislate for the independence referendum without legislative support from Westminster. But this is happening anyway, because the indyref has a clear democratic mandate.

There’s no reason why, if a Scottish Constitution is drafted and had clear public support in Scotland and a democratic mandate (for example, if all of the parties with MSPs accepted it as a framework for Scotland) a similar Westminister/SP5 arrangement couldn’t be made.

A Scottish Constitution would then have practical impact whether or not the independence referendum goes “YesScot” or “BetterTogether”.

It isn’t that people are against the idea, it’s just that it doesn’t seem possible. That’s no reason not to try it though. Probably we have just been in the trenches for too long to see over them.

Possibly! Historically the SNP never got involved with the first Constitutional Convention, because it was moving towards devolution rather than independence, so the SNP activists of the time have no practical experience in how that worked.

I think there’s also a presumption – I have noticed it on the CC FB page too – that first of all you have to win the fight for independence, and only then can you move on to other things.

But I’m not interested in “having a fight” over independence. I’ll decide how to vote in my own way and my own time. I am, however, interested in a Scottish Constitution, and am very much prepared to work towards that.

The Scottish Parliament as it is currently constituted couldn’t “accept” a constitution in the sense of giving it any legitimacy. But I agree people don’t have to wait to start discussing or pulling ideas together.

Maybe it would be an idea to get a cross-party group going? That could be a starting point in parliamentary terms.

I agree that a letter-writing campaign for the various groups to get them on board is a next step.

At the moment, I honestly don’t know if the idea of a Scottish Constitution has any broad appeal outside of the kind of politics nerds I tend to hang with.

There is a lot of stuff going on now with SCVO led groups looking at options – also in the trade union movement. Unison, Unite etc. all under banner of STUC. This is all going on under the political radar but it’s still going on.

It’s not directly about a written constitution but is about the kind of Scotland their members want to see so there is an obvious tie-in there I would have thought.