Scotland's differences, however real and profound, are not a threat but a gift to a Union in desperate need of reform

This sense of profound change seems almost universal in Scotland. Even the Vow made hastily and in panic just before the referendum by the three party leaders in London, recognised this . Over the signatures of Cameron, Milliband and Clegg, it began "The people of Scotland want to know that all three main parties will deliver change for Scotland. People want to see change"

Will they deliver?

In the 1997 Referendum the choice was between the status quo (no change) and a Scottish Parliament based on the Constitutional Convention's proposals .

Now, after the last Referendum, even the new status quo is no longer an option.

Even David Cameron said: "The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were"

The Referendum, despite the direct result, has had unforeseen consequences in the energising and confidence of the nation and the promise of new powers I believe it will be a lasting legacy, in a nation somehow come of age, struggling to give birth and shape to a different society, a more open, participative, just and prosperous social democracy. There has never been a greater opportunity for real change

Scotland marches to a different drum.

We might analyse that difference in 3 aspects;:

� We have a different history

� We have a different Parliament

� We have a different future

A Different History

The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 is widely seen as the foundation of Scotland as a nation. Its inspiring words on freedom are often quoted, but I believe the words that precede them are even more important.. Robert the Bruce, King of Scots, is told bluntly that he rules "by the due and lawful consent of all the people" (or "the Community of the Realm" in another translation) and then, in a sentence well ahead of its time, he is warned that if he submits to the English King, "we will make another King who will defend out rights". A minister at the Kirk's General. Assembly in 1989 put it memorably "They said to Robert, ye may be the King, but you dae as ye're telt or ye're on the burroo" (Translation - "You do as you're told, or you're on the dole") Not a bad thing for Scots to say to their own Parliament (in the original) and to Westminster (in translation)!

Why is this important? Because this is the foundation for the development of the notion of the "sovereignty of the people", which again and again in our history, through Claims of Right and in other ways, contradicts and rejects the constitutional theory of the absolutism and final authority of "The Crown in Parliament" It explains why the Constitutional Convention that planned the Scottish Parliament, began in 1989 with the solemn signing of the "Claim of Right for Scotland" which proclaimed "the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine how they will be governed". This was reaffirmed in 2012 by the Scottish Parliament, with only the Tories voting against, but it is depressing how so many of those who endorsed the claim , seem not to understand its revolutionary implications for the future and reform of UK politics..

A Different Parliament

Scotland's Parliament had different origins; was planned with different aspirations; and has different ways of working.

First, the origin was the minor miracle of consensus. It was achieved, in the words of the founding document of the new Parliament, "on a basis that is virtually unique in British politics and the vision of a new kind of politics. Constructive consensus is possible, even among those steeped in the ritual confrontations of British politics", This experience was a major factor in the success of the cross-party cooperation in government that the electoral system made inevitable.

Secondly, the aspiration was a "powerful hope, that the coming of a Scottish Parliament will usher in a way of politics that is radically different from the rituals of Westminster; more participative, more creative, less needlessly confrontational - a culture of openness; a means not an end" which will "make a real difference to the prosperity of the people of Scotland, and their quality of life"

The Scottish Parliament has made mistakes, but it has been by any standard better than Westminster, and has certainly won a permanent place in the hearts of the people.

Finally, these aspirations .were embodied in different ways of working. The electoral system is proportional. Noone need feel their votes are wasted. This system was expected - and indeed was designed - to make it impossible for any party to have an aabsolute majority, and therefore virtually inevitable, that Government could only be by cooperation of some kind. The first two four-year Parliaments (1999- 2007) were coalitions of Labour and LibDems , and the third (2007-2011) was a minority SNP Government, led by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, who had to form ad hoc arrangements with other parties on specific issues of policy and legislation. No Referendum on independence could be planned at that time against the united opposition of the 3 main unionist parties - who must find that rather embarrassing in the light of the impact it has actually made on Scotland. Then to our surprise in 2011 the SNP confounded the system and all expectations to win an overall majority, without which there would have been no Referendum

So now comes a General Election in which, before a single vote is actually cast, all seem to expect a "hung" Parliament. We have daily feverish speculation on who might work with whom, and pathetic nostalgia for the bad old days, when the outdated electoral system could usually be relied on to give majorities and keep out the annoying small parties.

If as expected, some form of cooperation will be essential, there are surely lessons to be learned from Scotland's experience of eight years of Lib/Lab coalition followed by eight years of SNP minority - then majority - rule have given Scotland stable, effective and arguably better government.

The UK may learn from Scotland, but there is one major difference of understanding.

For Westminster, cooperation is a reluctant necessity

For Scotland , cooperation is a deliberate design

Westminster sees cooperation as abnormal - a temporary aberration and nuisance

Scotland sees cooperation as the norm for the future - a permanent basis for better governance.

A Different Parliament? Vive la Difference

A Different Future

Donald Dewar often reminded us that home rule was a process, not a settlement. On that long journey our distinctive identity was grounded in our history and expressed in our Parliament. But something new and almost unbelievable has happened. The Referendum has had consequences that go far beyond its result. We will indeed never be the same again

Scotland was caught up in an unprecedented explosion of commitment, energy and empowerment that resulted in the minor miracle of a turnout of over 80%. The whole nation was set alight. People who in the past saw no point in voting became intelligently involved in the debate about our future. Scotland has awakened and I do not believe it will go back to sleep! We must not lose the momentum of this national movement with its promise of a more engaged and participative society in our land.

Secondly, the fact of that awakening has forced "the establishment" out of their institutional condescension, to take Scotland seriously As usual, Mrs Thatcher expressed it honestly when she told the young Tories "We English, who are really a marvellous people, are very generous to Scotland"

The Vow promised us, whichever party or parties are in power after the election, "permanent and extensive new powers" by a rapid process and timetable. According to Gordon Brown, the "eminence grise" behind the Vow of the Party Leaders, this includes entrenchment, so that no future Westminster Government could change any aspect of Scotland's Parliament without its consent. I have asked several times, and got no answer, how this can actually be achieved without reform of the UK's archaic non-constitution!

Thirdly, the experience of the referendum seems to have signalled a sea change in Scottish political life. If that is true, I would hope that a strong Scottish presence in Westminster would not only hold the party leaders to the solemn vow they made, but also demonstrate that Scotland's way, though different, is no threat, and could be of real help, to the people of the rest of the UK. The Westminster systems are no longer fit for purpose, and in urgent need of reform, a process in which Scottish MPs could have an important role to play.

Finally, does Scotland's future include another Referendum on Independence? Nicola Sturgeon has, I believe rightly, made three things clear ,

� The present election for the Commons has nothing to do with independence.

� Any such proposal would have be in the manifesto for the 2016 election, and then approved by the people and the Scottish Parliament

� But - and it is a decisive but - this could not be simply a repeat of the last one. It could only happen if a new constitutional situation arises which threatens Scotland's interests..

The most obvious possible example would be if the UK looked likely to leave the EU against Scotland's will and interests. That would profoundly affect the lives and well-being of the people, and would certainly justify, indeed necessitate, a Referendum in Scotland, I do not believe the people would calmly allow themselves to be dragged out of Europe

Scotland can show the UK as a whole

� That our Parliament has worked well, both as coalition and as minority Government.

� That the just and participatory democracy we seek to create is the best basis for prosperity

� That Scotland offers close ties of friendship and partnership with the rest of the UK and Europe

� That our differences, however real and profound, are not a threat but a gift to a Union in desperate need of reform.

Let the last word go to David Cameron, spoken in the heat of the expenses scandal - and soon forgotten: "I believe there is only one way out of this national crisis we face; we need a massive sweeping radical redistribution of power Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street"

It would be ironic if his bitter opponents should end up making the words he has clearly forgotten, into a reality.

Canon Kenyon Wright chaired the executive of the Scottish Constitutional Convention that laid the ground work for the Scottish Parliament.