I READ a sentence in an article in the Morning Star that helped explain why our constitution is in such a mess.

Nathan Akehurst, writing about the current constitutional wrangle, said: “There is a creaking old system to which democracy is a recent add-on.”

Britain did not have a “constitutional moment” when circumstances obliged it to codify the rules under which it would operate.

Instead it uses precedent and conventions and the sovereignty of Parliament, even when making quite fundamental changes such as setting up the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

Parliament could create these institutions by a simple majority, and in the same way it could abolish them.

In spite of this, the Scottish Parliament is described as one of the most powerful devolved institutions in the world, but there is no parity of esteem between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament.

Westminster is sovereign even ultimately on issues that are devolved.

There were high expectations that the new Scottish Parliament would do things differently, with talk of “new politics” the white paper spoke of “sharing” power between the people of Scotland, legislators and the Scottish Executive.

It was to be accessible, open and responsive. But it didn’t take long for the Parliament to become cautious and conservative.

Recent Scottish governments have ensured that there is little committee scrutiny and power has been centralised at the expense of local government.

We need to remember that the Scottish Parliament was designed under Tony Blair never to have a majority government.

There has in fact been one government with a majority — and two more where the SNP governed with the tacit support of the Conservatives and, more recently, the Greens.

There was also a concerted attempt to keep certain Labour MPs from being candidates.

After interview they were told that they were not up to the job of being members of the Scottish Parliament. These MPs would have given a strong voice for more radical politics than most of the Labour MPs that were elected.

As a result the Scottish Parliament has never lived up to its potential.

There were some achievements, though these are often overrated compared with their actual impact.

These include free personal care (which was never properly funded), the abolition of the graduate tax (which largely came at the expense of further education and has not protected students from high debt) and the abolition of prescription charges (which had already been introduced in Wales and Northern Ireland).

The plans to help protect people on benefits won’t come into effect for another two years.

The real challenge for the Scottish government was not how it would deliver during times of growth, but how it would respond to austerity.

The SNP government has failed. It has not only failed to protect people from the worst impact of Tory cuts, it has doubled down on austerity with swingeing cuts to local government that have hit the poorest hardest.

SNP supporters argue that once Scotland is free from the iron grip of the UK Treasury it will take a different course, but the SNP’s sustainable growth commission has made it loud and clear that this is not the case. Austerity will continue in an independent Scotland for many years ahead.

Even after 20 years of devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the introduction of metro mayors in parts of England, the British state continues to have one of the most centralised constitutions in the developed world. It is centralised legally and geographically.

Legally, a sitting UK government with a majority has untrammelled constitutional power and the devolved institutions have very little legal protection.

Geographically, within a few square miles of the centre of London you will find Parliament, the supreme court, virtually all of the UK government departments, the City of London, including the Bank of England and most financial services, the BBC and the national centres for music, culture and the arts are all huddled together in a world of their own. No wonder other parts of Britain feel excluded.

Discussions around leaving the EU have made it obvious that when the Scottish Parliament and Assemblies were introduced there should have been changes within the UK Parliament.

Britain operates with a quasi-federal arrangement within a unitary state. It is not surprising that this produces tensions and will continue to be a source of constitutional conflict unless it is reformed.

Could Brexit be a “constitutional moment” for Britain? It has certainly brought constitutional issues onto the front page of newspapers.

But we should never forget that the constitution is a class issue. There is not a neutral way of building a state or devolving power. It will be done in the best interests of a class. My question is: can that be done in the interests of the working class?

Regardless of the outcome of Brexit, we need a new way of working together that shares both political and economic power that is based on solidarity and not competition between different parts of Britain.

Currently we have a second chamber that is the epitome of class interest. Not only does it still have hereditary peers, but most of the others are considered to be “the great and the good” of our elite. It is supposed to be a chamber of “experts” — but the expertise it favours is that of the Establishment.

As well as ex-MPs and privy councillors, there are senior lawyers, doctors, academics etc, with a few celebrities thrown in.

I am proud to say that when I went to the Lords with the remit of working for its abolition at the earliest opportunity one newspaper wrote “Who is this nobody?”

It is well past time to abolish the House of Lords. A poll conducted last year for the Electoral Reform Society showed a clear majority for reform and there is growing interest in replacing it with a senate of the nations and regions.

The Red Paper Collective has for the past 10 years argued the case for progressive federalism. It has campaigned for a radical, democratic constitutional settlement, based on the commitment to redistribute power and wealth.

The new settlement should move from the existing model, where power is devolved from the central state to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It should instead be a relationship of shared power based on partnership, not hierarchy.

Under this arrangement there must be common minimum standards across Britain on human rights, employment rights, consumer protection and environmental protection, and the Scottish Parliament should have the power to enhance — but never detract — from these minimum standards.

There should also be protection for state assets so, if for example, Royal Mail or the railways were brought back under public ownership they would be safeguarded for the whole of Britain.

Any new constitutional framework should: 1) Make our economy democratically accountable 2) Enable the redistribution of wealth and power within and across Britain 3) Sustain and strengthen the labour and trade union movement and class solidarity across Britain

Brexit or no Brexit, this crisis will not go away. It is built into the fabric of our archaic and elitist political system.

We must unite in the fight to take power for the many and away from the few.