UH-OH. Someone’s had an idea for a new Scottish law and we know how that can end don’t we? But maybe, for once, we could learn some lessons from the mistakes? I have a few ideas.

But first: a run-down of the law being proposed. The idea comes from John Mason, the SNP MSP, who’s worried about people setting off fireworks and flares in football stadiums and I get where he’s coming from: football fans + beer + fireworks = worrying situation. We saw it at Hampden on Sunday.

Mr Mason’s response to the situation is that there should be “safe pyrotechnic zones” within stadiums, essentially areas where fans would be allowed to set off flares if they have applied for permission beforehand. It happens in stadiums in Norway and seems to work quite well.

Mark Smith: Another sign Scottish universities aren’t standing up for free speech

In principle, this is all fine and dandy: fans enjoy the atmosphere created by flares but they can be dangerous so why not allow them in a controlled environment? The question is whether the Scottish Government and Parliament in their current states are capable of delivering a law based on Mr Mason’s idea. The same applies to his colleague James Dornan’s idea of strict liability for the clubs.

Let’s look at the evidence. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act for example. Mr Mason was a supporter of the act and cautioned against its repeal even though it lacked clarity, the police were confused by it, lawyers and fans had no respect for it and the conviction rate was woeful. It was a law that was dangerously dependent on subjective judgment rather than clear rules everyone could understand. It was a bad law.

Sadly, the same looks like it’s happening elsewhere, for the same reasons. The Hate Crime Act for example: it is also dangerously dependent on subjective judgment and its implementation has been delayed because of police concerns about resources and training. The bottle deposit scheme is also mired in problems and the proposed ban on alcohol advertising looks shaky at best. What is it about the SNP and the Scottish Parliament that they keep doing this? Bad ideas, bad laws, badly done.

There are, I think, essentially three fundamental problems and therefore three areas where improvements could be made. First, Holyrood law is far too often made without the proper involvement of the people who know what they’re talking about. So in the case of the sectarian law: the police, the fans, lawyers. In the case of the deposit scheme and an alcohol advertising ban: businesses. Good laws emerge from good engagement with the interested parties. In other words, why doesn’t the Government listen more?

Secondly, once a law gets past the ideas stage, the system for scrutinising it is woeful. A bill should be put through the ringer, it should be tested by the best minds and the most critical critics, but instead Holyrood has a committee system populated by SNP yes-men. Interestingly, Mr Mason himself has made this point: he has said there needs to be a realisation among backbench SNP politicians that part of their job is to scrutinise legislation. Quite right but perhaps they’ll have to be forced to do it: government, party and parliament should be separated at Holyrood as it is at Westminster. This would help make better laws.

Mark Smith: Sorry, but Glasgow should charge for all museums and galleries

The third problem is one that’s particularly obvious in Lorna Slater’s handling of the bottle scheme, and it’s an issue that I'm afraid may be inherent in the nationalist mindset. Slater’s plan – which is good in principle – is being implemented before a similar scheme in England and Wales. But why? Why not wait and implement a system that would work well across the UK? The Scottish Government will make better laws when it gets over the idea that it must always be different from the rest of the UK and do its own thing.

These ground rules are not a guarantee of good law – you also need ministerial competence and I’m afraid we may be low on that too. But if you do the groundwork, involve the experts, listen to the warnings, put the law to the test with your fiercest critics and co-operate with your friends and neighbours to ensure the law is going to work as well as it can, you have a much better chance of making law that works. Safe pyrotechnic zones may be a good idea. But let’s ensure we do it properly shall we?