Fractions fail

I took great interest in Conor Matchett's piece in Thursday's Scotsman ("Support of two thirds of MPS should be required for indyref2”) , reporting the details of the Institute for Government's latest paper reviewing the UK constitution.

Firstly, the assertion by its author, former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft, that devolution is an “unsatisfactory halfway house” must be challenged. Regardless of Mr Rycroft's opinion, the devolution settlement is what people in Scotland voted for in 1997. Overwhelmingly. In addition, the 2014 referendum was won with promises of significant further devolution and constitutional permanence.

Secondly, regarding twothirds majorities for constitutional change, this will never be allowed to come to be, because the English constitutional concept that "Parliament is sovereign" is too useful a tool for passing contentious legislation for any UK government to give away willingly.

Can you imagine Boris Johnson's government accepting that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (repealed earlier this year by 316 votes to 162) had to stay on the statute books because a two-thirds majority was not achieved?

In summary, the proposed two-thirds majority for constitutional change could only work for the most “Cakeist” of prime ministers. It would be described as essential and a fundamental requirement for legislation the executive wished to block, and bypassed or ignored for legislation that the executive wished to pass.

That is no way to govern a country.

DAVID PATRICK

Edinburgh