ENGLISH Votes for English Laws, that seemingly fair-sounding concept, is shaping up to be one of the most dishonest, disruptive, damaging and contentious episodes in British constitutional history.

The notion that something this profound could be dreamed up on the steps of Downing Street at 7am in the morning after the referendum result last September, and be put into effect through Parliamentary procedures rather than full and considered legislation is breathtaking in its implications.

The United Kingdom is in dire need of constitutional reform, from its voting system to its need for a more federal settlement to the absolute essential of Lords reform, and yet we are to have this change, piecemeal yet profound, pushed through via Westminster procedures without any legislative change. This is beyond satire.

Don't take our word for it. Alistair Carmichael, our sole LibDem tribune and with his reputation hardly unscathed from recent events which may yet unseat him, called the proposals "an outrage" and rightly pointed out that they drove a magisterial coach through the rules about the convention about a double majority at the Report stage of passing Westminster law.

The Orkney and Shetland MP went as far as claiming that David Cameron was "now a bigger threat to the continuation of the UK than Alex Salmond."

The SNP called it "a constitutional shambles, staggering in the extent of its hypocrisy and incoherence" and rightly contrasted this with the rejection of every single amendment to the Scotland Bill. "The Westminster system wants an English veto, but rides roughshod over the democrat rights of the people of Scotland."

Labour's Ian Murray called the plans a "constitutional wrecking ball" gerrymandering UK politics without consideration for the risk posed to the Union.

We stand back from the partisan exchanges, but we believe this is not smart politics by the UK Government. It may be unsurprising given the whole thing was dreamed up during a wave of triumphalism in the early hours of September 19 last year, but this is no way to run a constitution or the vital reform required of it.

Beyond partisan politics, here is Christine McLintock, president of the Law Society of Scotland, who said: "The West Lothian question has existed for almost 40 years, and will not be answered by changing the House of Commons standing orders alone."

Others were making similar points yesterday. The Electoral Reform Society were also in high dudgeon, accusing the Prime Minister of playing fast and loose with the constitution. The society also called it "constitutionally reckless to ram English votes through with only one day of Parliamentary debate."

The ERS rightly points out the degree to which there are profound questions affecting all of these islands. What about the politicisation of the role of Speaker, who will be asked to be arbitrate on which parliamentary business is to be deemed "English only"? This is a hugely politicised, poisoned chalice which the convener of proceedings at Westminster could really do without.

Above all, and here, too credit to the ERS for zeroing in on the crux: "What role do our citizens have in deciding where our democracy goes from here?"

What role indeed. This is profound change, on the hoof, and almost certainly not clever tactics for anyone supporting the Union.