After the result of the referendum in Scotland, there is much discussion as to what steps to take now to address constitutional issues. I have variously made the case for a constitutional convention to make sense of where we are constitutionally. Otherwise, we are in danger of going off half-cock with proposals, the consequences of which – not least for other parts of the constitution – are not thought through.
Mark D’Arcy of BBC Parliament has come up with rather a novel – some may think alarming – idea. You can read his blog post here. The salient passage is:
“Already wise heads are shaking in Westminster. To some, the way to change the constitution is by slow, deliberative change. Essentially the ideal process is to clone the constitutional scholar Lord Norton of Louth, sit a dozen of him down in a committee room somewhere, take detailed evidence from the wise and the experienced and ruminate upon it for months – if not years – before producing a careful, nuanced set of proposals with a ready-made consensus behind them.”
The approach finds favour with me, but whether the world is ready for another one of me – never mind a dozen – is another matter. Perhaps we could settle for some like-minded individuals.