Canon Kenyon Wright: One thing is certain, whatever the outcome of the election next month. There will be significant changes in the constitutional arrangements by which we are governed.

CANON KENYON WRIGHT

One thing is certain, whatever the outcome of the election next month. There will be significant changes in Scotland's governance; that is, in the constitutional arrangements by which we are governed. If we recognise the sovereignty of the people in such matters, as all in the old Constitutional Convention did in the Claim of Right for Scotland, and if after May 3 there is a majority in the new parliament for a referendum, it is hard to see how anybody could plausibly argue against holding one in due course. But these are big ifs. In any case, the need for a new constitutional convention, or something like it, is based not on the simplistic question of a yes or no to independence, but on the need to create a new phase of democracy in Scotland capable of facing the challenges of the 21st century.

The breakthrough in the 1990s was the realisation that our problem was not who happened to govern us, but rather how we were governed. This awareness, that the central issue was not political but constitutional, was brought home to us painfully by the attempt of Thatcherism to misuse centralised power to impose on Scotland not just policies we rejected, but an alien ideology. That must never be allowed to happen again. Indeed, that is what gave birth to the Constitutional Convention, in which even the careful Donald Dewar called on us to "live a little dangerously".

We must reject both of the opposing claims made by the main parties, one that the constitutional issue at stake is just about independence, and the other that the questions that matter to people are the "bread and butter" issues. The very fact that once again more people than vote for any party will probably vote with their feet for none is surely a sign of the distrust and cynicism in which the whole political process is held by so many. True, few on the doorsteps will put the constitution high up on their list of concerns, but behind all the questions of taxation, health and education, on which the main parties seem to be engaged in a Dutch auction, there lurks the unavoidable issue of how Scotland can be governed in ways that are true to our values, that foster real participation in a reformed politics and that prepare us to be a nation fit to contribute to solving the global life-or-death issues facing us all.

In the very existence of the Scottish Parliament we have succeeded in creating the first and only secure source of alternative constitutional power in the history of the UK. However, to assert the sovereignty of the people in constitutional matters is not just to reject the idolatrous, if rather tattered, claim of Westminster to absolute sovereignty, and its "elective dictatorship" (as Lord Hailsham said). It is to reject the claim of any parliament, even one elected by a fairer system, to the last word in these matters. I believe there is a strong and urgent case for a new constitutional convention, but to be credible it must be established not by parliament alone, but by an authoritative group representing all the major sectors of Scotland's civil society.

The convention must begin with an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the people. It must be broadly representative, not just of politicians, in its membership, and work with all sections of society in Scotland. It should work by "a resolute search for consensus" - a willingness of all parties to give and take for the common good.

It should aim to ensure that all proposals and ideas for change in Scotland's governance, whatever their source, are fully debated and where appropriate finally decided in Scotland. It should prepare a model constitution for Scotland which is based on articulate common values, traditions and ideals - a nation firmly grounded in a vision, not just political negotiation or expediency. It should aim to create the institutions needed for a participative society capable of long-term coherent strategic thinking and planning, rather than the short-term thinking inherent today, to ensure that Scotland has the means to contribute effectively to the development of the global society of the 21st century.

One such institution might be a second revising chamber of some sort. The Constitutional Convention created a monocameral parliament, but anticipated a level of real public participation in policy development that would provide the scrutiny and revision needed. In effect, we expected the people to be the second chamber. That has not yet happened, so the issue has become a live one again.

If our new parliament is ready to work with other stakeholders in our society to set up such a convention, good and well. If not, then I believe it will be up to the many in our civil society who are ready to act, including MSPs and elected representatives of local government, urgently to set up a body that will carry its own authority, much as we did in the first convention. Such a development might have to begin with a smaller - but still authoritative - constitutional commission, charged to prepare for a full convention as soon as possible.

The report of the recent Power Inquiry into Britain's democracy, chaired by Helena Kennedy, proved conclusively through widespread hearings and massive evidence the dangerous extent of contempt, not for politics as such, but for the present political process. It concludes: "Changes of this magnitude cannot be left simply to elected representatives. An alliance for change needs to be built among the most clear-sighted MPs, councillors, MEPs and members of devolved institutions, but only a sustained campaign for change from outside the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure meaningful reform. We, the people, have to stake our claim on power."

Is it too imaginative to suggest that Scotland should be in the best position to make this a reality?