In 1995 the Scottish Constitutional Convention presented “Scotland’s Parliament, Scotland’s Right” to the people of Scotland. That led directly to the devolution referendum and the Parliament at Holyrood. The eleven or so years since have seen many changes, some of them for the better. However, contrary to the expectations of many, devolution has not diminished the desire for more autonomy for Scotland. When this is coupled with a corresponding desire south of the border for “English votes for English matters”, there can be little doubt that both Scotland and the UK are in constitutional crisis.
The Scottish General Election was dominated by the constitutional debate, and there are compelling reasons for a fundamental rethink about Scotland’s constitutional future. The political process is inadequate and inappropriate for such a major rethink, partly because it tends to be self-serving and opportunistic, but also because it has not shown itself able to think constitutionally and strategically, which is precisely the kind of thinking that Scotland most needs at this point in her history. The time has come for a very different kind of debate about Scotland’s constitutional future, a debate that is not controlled or dominated by politicians or the usual suspects. That is why we are taking steps to establish a Constitutional Commission for Scotland.  Before saying more about the Commission, it is worth outlining briefly why we felt it necessary to set it up. There are five compelling reasons for doing so.

Sovereignty of the People
Scotland was recently taken to war against the wishes of its people, by a government that commands the support of only a small minority of the UK electorate. In a mature democracy with a proper constitution that simply could not happen. Yet, if some politicians and others are to be believed, the “best small country in the world” is strangely incompetent to decide the big issues affecting its future. As if this were not enough, our human and legal rights are under serious threat from politicians who use the pretext of the “war on terror”. In most other liberal democracies the kinds of changes being put through by the Blair Government would require the consent of at least two-thirds of the electorate and would, in any event, be subject to the overriding scrutiny and veto of a constitutional court, an institution conspicuously absent from the UK. What is happening, in effect, is that the distinctly English principle of the “absolute sovereignty of Parliament” is being used to control Scotland, where this principle has never been recognised. In Scotland, sovereignty resides with the people and this principle was formally confirmed in 1989 when some prominent Scots put their names to the Constitutional Convention’s Claim of Right, which affirmed “the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine how they will be governed.” That claim and those signatures (including those of the great majority of Scotland’s Westminster MPs) as well as many local authorities, academics and trade unions, effectively denied the right of Westminster to absolute sovereignty. However, if it is to have any practical impact, the Scottish principle has to be asserted more explicitly and should be enshrined in a Scottish Constitution.