A grown-up second chamber would enhance democracy in Scotland

Too often recently, ­contentious legislation seems to have been subjected to what we might charitably call insufficient scrutiny.

This is not to disparage the work of ­Holyrood committees, but since they are set up to reflect the parliamentary ­arithmetic, they can’t always be relied on to flag up fairly obvious elephant traps into which the main chamber then tumbles.

They are also, inevitably, liable to take their steer from the convener. This is fine when the latter are competent, articulate and even-handed. Yet occasionally the ­curtain parts and you are underwhelmed.

Think back, if you can bear it, to the days of the inquiry into the Salmond/Sturgeon legal stand-off, set up to examine the finer detail of that unhappy business.

READ MORE: The path towards a written Scottish constitution

I’m not sure how the former Tory MSP Margaret Mitchell was selected to chair this highly sensitive committee of ­inquiry, but mistaking loquaciousness for ­eloquence, she contrived to make a sow’s ear of ­anything in danger of becoming a silk purse.

Part of the problem stems from the flawed system of partial proportional representation which was selected for Holyrood. This allowed the selection of people from party lists to serve alongside those victorious in the discredited first-past-the-post system.

It led to what became a suggestion that we had first and second-class MSPs since the regional variety were often disparaged by the FPTP variety.

It also maintained the unsatisfactory state of affairs where parties could decide in advance on the ranking of their ­proposed candidates – assuring success for some and casting others into the outer darkness.

Personally I favour the single transferable vote which, while perhaps offering less of a connection between the winners and their constituency, at least leaves the voters with the first and last word on the matter.

It was a bold move to use it for local ­government elections in Scotland back in 2007, but it was necessary to help clear out at least some of the dead wood ­masquerading as fully functioning ­councillors.

There is still work to be done in that forum, but STV was a good start.

People who argue against the electorate being able to choose their own ­preferred batting order often say the ­system leads to coalitions. In my book this is ­actually a recommendation rather than a hazard. ­Being collegiate rather than ­confrontational seems quite grown up from where I’m looking on.

So what I have in mind is a second chamber, a senate if you like, that is ­selected regionally by the public. It would not just be reflective of local concerns, combatting the perceived Central Belt bias, but devolve more power to the ­grassroots.

To avoid the senators looking on this as a lifetime meal ticket, there would be a strict maximum on how long they could serve. Probably two terms, since much of the first would entail getting up to speed.

Their primary role would be to look in detail at proposed policy initiatives, ­examine their likely impact across ­Scotland and elsewhere, and consult widely as to whether the legislation in question could fly without hitting too many obstructions in the process.

The more thoughtful and assiduous ­attenders in the Lords do this, but their ­legitimacy has been undermined by the raft of political appointees shoved ­upstairs for assorted services rendered. Or not being up to the day job in the ­Commons. Or both.

READ MORE: The picture-­perfect Scottish island image hides harsh realities

A Holyrood Senate couldn’t, of course, slavishly reflect popular opinion which, in some quarters, still regrets the demise of hanging and flogging. But it would be perfectly acceptable to note widespread concerns as to possible legislative misuse and abuse.

Around 40% of countries worldwide now have two chambers, though they vary widely as to which powers are ­invested and where.

In France, for instance, both its Senate and National Assembly have to have a majority in favour of anything proposed, while in Westminster the Lords is always deemed subservient to the Commons even where the latter has lost the plot – viz the Rwanda debacle.

The US’s system of Senate plus the larger House of Representatives has evolved over the centuries, but still ­retains the habit of sending the same number of senators for each state. This means that tiny Rhode Island and California both get the same number of bites at the Senate cherry.

So there is no shortage of examples from which we can learn in terms of cherry-picking what works best

For my money, a Scottish Senate would ­comprise the most diverse possible range of ­experience – from trade unionists and entrepreneurs to educators, former NHS staff, and those who keep their communities in cultural good health. A chamber ­reflecting humanity, not privilege.

They would, hopefully, bring a depth and range of experience from their own lives and livelihoods and, given the limit on their term of office, not think of the senatorial role as any kind of side door into regular politics.

We should be looking for concerned and committed citizens prepared to help our still young legislature avoid some of the messiness of recent avoidable ­stushies.

It’s not been helpful that so many ­commentators have waged a constant war on Holyrood and all its works. I spent some years covering Westminster ­politics and, trust me, if you are looking for ­examples of serial stupidity, you are ­looking in the right place in ­Whitehall.

READ MORE: Ken Loach, the Pope, Corbyn and Starmer’s lost Labour Party

Centuries of tradition are meaningless if you wind up in the 21st century with an administration you wouldn’t back to run a raffle.

What matters above all is competence and intelligence, not adjectives you would immediately attach to the likes of ­Suella Braverman.

Every legislature in the world makes mistakes; the most successful ones are those able to admit them and learn from them. Doubling down on ill thought through initiatives is a sure-fire recipe for more disaster.

The fact is that we have many ­people across the divide in Holyrood who ­genuinely care about their country and its future. We have people who have made it their business to gain real ­expertise in ­areas in which they have a special ­interest.

Yet we have lost some of the latter; like Andy Wightman, whose party, I think, failed to realise his enviable track record in pursuing land reform. And, in truth, we have some of what we might term ­transients who only ever looked on ­Holyrood as a poor man’s Westminster. We will not mourn their passing.

And, as we’ve witnessed, there are some Scots in Westminster who lose no opportunity to diss their native land and frustrate its parliament at every possible turn. Ironically, many of them would ­never have got near a political job were it not for the devolutionary arrangements and electoral system they so despised.

In short, it took a very long time to ­regain a Scottish parliament

And it is still, in truth, in its parliamentary infancy. We have the choice of helping to shape a healthy future for it or allow bad actors to try and shape it for us.

To use bribery and trickery to try to get the Scottish electorate to doubt ­Holyrood’s very legitimacy and fear the next logical step of full independence.

They say that what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. There is no shortage of those who would love nothing more than to dance on the grave of the Scottish independence movement. They have not, and will not, kill it off, however.

Too many Scots have watched the serial car crashes in London and determined that they will be a part of building something better.

As the polls confirm, the appetite for indy has not diminished. It just needs fresh nourishment.