´óÏó´«Ã½

It must be frustrating to the purist and the partisan but changes to Scotland's constitution have tended to come about via circuitous routes.

The final choice, of course, pursues a relatively simple path: the people accede, either at an election or a referendum or both.

However, the preparation is frequently complex, reflecting competing priorities and demands.

Think of the present devolved Parliament. Scotland said Yes - just - in 1979 to a different form of devolution.

That was thwarted by an unprecedented and unrepeated constraint upon the voters.

The Constitutional Convention then laboured lengthily in the absence of the SNP who had - understandably, given their long-term perspective - declined to support a process which was designed to preclude the option of independence.

But then the SNP decided to campaign alongside the devolution parties for a Yes/Yes vote at the referendum: a plebiscite which, itself, had been hugely controversial when announced but is now widely viewed as an essential precursor to securing the necessary Westminster legislation and embedding the new devolved parliament.

Same side

That route may have seemed faintly tortuous and, on occasion, without end.

But it was arguably the only way by which parties espousing completely different views of Scotland's constitutional future could end up on the same side in a referendum.

The Scottish people liked what they saw and assented, overwhelmingly.

Now, 10 years on, we have similarly tortuous politics ahead. We have a Queen's Speech which promises to "take forward proposals in the final report of the Commission on Scottish devolution".

That is .

However, "taking forward" does not mean enacting - at least not this side of the next UK General Election, expected in May.

It means publishing a white paper. Action on Calman may fall to Labour or to the Tories (also Calman members) or to a hung Parliament to consider further.

Referendum test

At Holyrood, we are shortly to have a white paper from the Scottish government on how an independent Scotland might shape up.

But opposition from rival parties - who say the recessionary time is not ripe - means that these proposals are highly unlikely to be put to the test in a referendum, at least before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2011.

Frustration, then? Stasis? Deadlock? Not necessarily.

Once these white papers are published, Scots will have before them - with, one hopes, some degree of clarity - alternative visions of how their country might proceed in the field of self-governance.

There can then follow debate, discussion and, eventually, decision.

Remember, devolution resembles evolution. Just takes longer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?