YOU are living in a country where a new prime minister will be chosen by 0.3% of the electorate, to form a government that doesn’t have a majority, in a party that is 20% in the polls, to try to deliver something that the majority of the country does not want.

On the basis of the UK’s banjaxed constitution this is all perfectly fine. But it is not right. And morals and ethics count, particularly in times of crisis.

I am not alone in this contention. Here is Boris Johnson in the Daily Telegraph on June 21, 2007: “It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me.”

He was talking about Gordon Brown’s elevation to prime minister without a General Election. Johnson went on to say: “It’s a transaction about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero.”

Worse, the two candidates for the highest office in the land have been branded in the House of Commons as dealing in terminological inexactitudes. In short, we are looking at a dissipated state headed by someone who it is asserted may be ethically challenged.

It is said that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. If the British state enables the election of either of these folks, it is surely doomed.

It is clear too – they will happily use the state to crush opposition. Witness the withdrawal of Foreign Office support for the First Minister at a time when diplomats are warning that the UK has never been so poorly perceived overseas.

When the inevitable sanitisation of the successful candidate takes place, as it surely must, he will no doubt have recourse to ethical terms to justify his actions.

When that happens, we ought to bear in mind this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted the spoons.”

Values matter, and as I travel round the country talking to people of all walks of life about constitutions, there is one ethical issue that crops up regularly – the Claim of Right.

Let’s take a closer look at this statement. My greatly missed friend Canon Kenyon Wright was a firm believer in the Claim. He regarded the people of Scotland as sovereign, and believed that they alone ought to determine the sort of government they wished.

But the Claim, while important, is a moral assertion. It is the ethical basis of the state, but it is not sufficient. Kenyon, of course, understood this very well, which is why we formed the Constitutional Commission. We recognised that a focus on independence is not enough.

This very point was eloquently made in the excellent article by Fintan O’Toole in these very pages last week. Independence, in and of itself, says nothing about the distribution of power, nor about matters such as inclusion, public accountability and good governance. It is not enough to free ourselves from the dead hand of Westminster.

To reap the benefits and mitigate the risks of independence, we have to ensure the new Scottish state will be a stable, inclusive and effective democracy.

Democracy is an ideal that can go on illuminating public life in Scotland. The building and maintenance of a flourishing Scottish democracy does not come to an end on the day the Union flag is struck from Edinburgh Castle.

The desire to “end London rule” must therefore be backed by a positive plan for the construction of a democratic constitutional country.

Only on that constitutional basis can an independent Scotland successfully face the serious economic, demographic, ecological, technological, cultural and ethical challenges of the future. Independence without this basis would not be attractive and would not bring about the hoped-for improvements in people’s quality of life.

The constitution is therefore central and essential to the case for independence.

Constitutions do many things. They are not merely catalogues of rights.

They also “constitute” in the sense of “put together” the state. A Scottish Constitution must establish a Scottish state on a solid democratic legal-institutional basis, ensuring that power operates impersonally, legally and institutionally – rather than power being exercised arbitrarily by a particular person or party.

In so doing, the constitution will lay a firm foundation for future social and economic progress which is rooted in a stable, inclusive and accountable government, and in the rule of law and the protection of human rights.

It will also serve as a standard of principles and values, showing up any deviations or corruptions.

A written constitution will help to ensure the inclusion of as many people as possible in the democratic society.

It will also enhance the legitimacy of the state. And it will protect popular sovereignty; reassure minorities (especially those who voted against independence) and promote Scotland’s international recognition.

The Constitution is the very foundation of a new Scottish state. And this will be a solid and stable foundation when based on sound values and moral principles.

This column welcomes readers’ questions