THERE would be an irony about creating a Scottish Upper House to review Holyrood legislation and ensure it was properly held to account.

What would we call it? Perhaps we would look for a Gaelic word, say Seanad, the Gaelic term for the Senate. Only that is the name of the Upper House in Dublin, which has become such a by-word for political cronies that the Irish are currently looking at abolishing it.

When the Scottish Parliament evolved out of the ideas of the Scottish Constitutional Convention it was to be a bright, modern body, entirely elected and owing nothing to the hereditary House of Lords. It was also meant to be a place of consensus, where no party could readily gain full control of the reins of power.

That meant that for eight years two parties met behind closed doors for a few days, thrashed out a coalition deal, divvied up the Ministerial posts, and then wielded the power granted them by their combined majority.

But it was still a form of power sharing, two parties coming together to share policies and trade posts. The minority SNP administration of 2007-11 was a shock to the system, a counter-intuitive political dare. But what happened last May was entirely unforeseen, an outright victory by a single party.

Esther Roberton and Canon Kenyon Wright were two key members of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which came up with the plans for Holyrood, and while both have their criticisms of how events have played out, they believe the Parliament is better as a single chamber.

Ms Roberton does not doubt the SNP's right to its majority status, but thinks that having bucked expectations and won outright control Alex Salmond might have chosen to be more magnanimous in terms of the convenership and membership of committees. "That is an area where the current Government could have been more generous," she says.

Having watched Labour and the Liberal Democrats take full advantage of the Parliament's procedures for two four-year terms and then handled four years as a minority Government, it is perhaps asking a lot of Alex Salmond not to enjoy the full privilege of a majority.

But the anti-sectarianism Bill passed on Wednesday was opposed by all opposition parties, including the Greens and the independent MSP Margo MacDonald. So should there be a mechanism for revisiting it and other such legislation?

Former Presiding Officer George Reid said there was no desire for another unelected body but there was a place for "post-legislative scrutiny" for Acts which have sparked public concern.

Canon Wright, convener of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, said: "We always hoped for a democracy in the European model with checks and balances, but the model constitution we are looking at doesn't postulate a second chamber."

The Presiding Officer, former SNP member Tricia Marwick, is currently overseeing a review of the Parliament's procedures, but anyone looking for additional legislative scrutiny should not hold their breath.

Her focus is on making proceedings more topical and more responsive to breaking issues. That could see the Chamber sitting three afternoons a week and more timely questions, but there are no plans for extra scrutiny of legislation, before or after it is passed.