If there were a more consensual path forward for Scotland’s constitutional debate, one that was able to identify what the people of Scotland actually wanted, would our politicians be able to take it?

The Sewel Convention may not be the talk of the town but it is, nevertheless, an important feature of Scotland’s devolution settlement. Conceived as a way to protect the Scottish Parliament from unwanted Westminster interference in devolved areas, it requires, by convention rather than strict law, that Holyrood consents to proposed changes.

In recent years, under the more integrationist Unionism of the current UK government, it has become a convention marked as much by its breaking as its keeping. That shift in approach is one of the primary reasons that its replacement is so central to Gordon Brown’s proposals to constitutionally re-wire the UK – plans now set to be implemented by an incoming UK Labour Government.

Under Labour’s plans, the current convention will fundamentally change in character. It will be given the weight of law and, as a result, the Scottish Parliament’s formal legislative consent will be required before Westminster can change devolved laws or change the basis of devolution itself.

Read more: The strategy that's most likely to keep the UK together

As the Brown Report states, the requirement for consent “should apply both to legislation in relation to devolved matters and, explicitly, to legislation affecting the status or powers of the devolved legislatures and executives. It should not be restricted to applying ‘normally’, but should be binding in all circumstances.”

For me, the most powerful and attractive elements of the Brown package are those, like the Sewel reforms, that are designed to improve the way inter-governmental relations work. There is an ambition for a new, more co-operative way of working across these isles – not only new rules and structures, but an implicit commitment to make them work, even if it means the centre not always getting its way.

Giving Scotland real legislative consent is a significant part of Labour’s plans. It is something to which they attach real meaning within a wider package of reform.

While none of us can see the future, it would take a brave person to bet against the election of a Labour government at the next UK election. These changes are very much on their way. Indeed, it is likely that one of the first laws that a Starmer government introduces will be this constitutional reform package, which means that, maybe two years from now, a constitutional reform bill will come to the Scottish Parliament for legislative consent.

The Herald:

If we are to take Labour at their word, they will take the granting or withholding of that consent seriously. That, in turn, creates an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to offer a meaningful ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’ to the Labour proposals.

The legislative consent process could, of course, become the focal point for yet another more-heat-than-light constitutional tug of war, with party politicking to the fore. But are we not all tired of that?

We could, of course, choose to do things differently. Consultation is an already well-established part of the legislative consent process at Holyrood and, drawing on the experiences that helped bring the Scottish Parliament into being 25 years ago, that consultation could become a genuine civic engagement.

We have the wherewithal to construct a process of all-Scotland conversation, starting within a matter of months, that takes Labour’s plans as a starting point while including also more independence and full independence – no option ruled out, no option favoured. It would be an attempt to actually discover the constitutional will of the Scottish people.

The question is a simple one. We are being presented with serious plans for change, should Holyrood consent to them, or do the people of Scotland genuinely want more?

Consent might be given with a straightforward yes. Labour’s plans might best reflect the will of the Scottish people. Or the answer could be a ‘yes, but...’ or ‘no, unless....’

We might discover, in this process of real civic engagement, that the will of the Scottish people is for something more. The people of Scotland might wish their Parliament to agree to Labour’s plans, but only on the basis of some important additions, for example, gaining more job-creating powers or, indeed, securing the power for Holyrood to legislate for an independence referendum.

How would a Labour government respond to a vote in the Scottish Parliament setting, as a condition for legislative consent, the granting of the power to hold an independence referendum? I can already hear the voices insisting that Prime Minister Starmer would ignore it, but does that not go against the very grain of the changes he is looking to introduce? A bold ‘take back control’ becoming instead the same old ‘take it or leave it’.

This, to be clear, is not some nationalist ploy to block or undermine the Labour plans. Rather, it reflects their logical conclusion: consent is either something real or it is no consent at all.

Read more: Independence is a battle for hearts, not minds

Friends keep telling me that I am overly optimistic. But, at some point, do our political leaders not need to sit down and talk to each other? Labour proposes a new culture of co-operation, SNP plans for independence depend on a successfully negotiated outcome. For these to work, for these to be even credible, relationships need to be built, so why not now?

My own party, the SNP, is currently engaged in a debate about whether to use a future Westminster or Holyrood election as a ‘de facto’ referendum vote, but almost everyone I speak to believes these options are a distant second best. This idea is not a magic wand that would guarantee the delivery of our preferred 2014-style referendum. However, it opens up a path that might take us there, delivering a gold-standard referendum in four or five years, if that’s what the people genuinely want.

Whether or not to consent to a Labour Reform Bill is a decision our parliament will almost certainly have to take, so let’s take it well. Let’s use this as an opportunity to discover the will of the people, in all its nuance and complexity, as part of a ground-up process designed to make sure that the next steps on our constitutional journey are the ones the people of Scotland actually want to take.

Stephen Noon was chief strategist of the Yes campaign in the 2014 referendum