Boris-noris is a 19th-century Dorset term meaning “going on blindly, without thought to risk or decency”. As Britain goes full boris-noris and the UK ship of state sinks steadily beneath the waves, the Scottish Government has offered a refuge for those who want to consider a new vessel.

The Citizens’ Assembly provides an excellent way for everyone to join in with creating a better boat, but some politicians have scorned this chance. They want to go down with the UK ship, regardless. And they are perfectly entitled to do so.

So, what should the captain of the lifeboat do? This is a question that must trouble David Martin and the Citizens’ Assembly.

It is the same question that challenges constitution builders. An effective constitution needs to reflect the broad sweep of public sentiment, but how can this be achieved when some of the public choose not to participate? Perhaps the way successful constitutions are made provides some clues.

This method uses a two-stage process. The first stage is the adoption of a Provisional Constitution, which would be agreed ahead of the independence referendum and would come into effect on Independence Day.

This constitution would be developed by a Constitutional Conference. Those opposed to independence would probably not participate, but it might not matter, provided there is as wide a consensus as possible in the pro-independence camp.

After all, it is the duty of those who favour independence to set out a clear prospectus for statehood, including the design of a constitution.

The second stage would be the adoption of a Permanent Constitution, which may be more radical and would be agreed after independence by a more inclusive and participatory process.

So here is an idea to break the present constitutional logjam. The next referendum should be held on the concrete issue of the adoption of a Provisional Constitution for Scotland.

That document, and not the abstract idea of independence, should be the subject of the vote. The question should be something to the effect of: “Do you approve the Provisional Constitution for Scotland as proposed by the Constitutional Conference?”

Tying the general question of independence to the approval of a specific Provisional Constitution in this way has several electoral advantages.

On the one hand, it provides the “small c” conservatives with certainty and reassurance that an independent Scotland will not be the next Zimbabwe.

On the other hand, protecting human rights and democratic processes may attract small “l” liberals disenchanted by the UK’s authoritarian drift towards a failed state.

Because voters will not be asked to endorse a “blank cheque” by handing unlimited power to the Scottish Parliament, the argument about independence being a “power grab” by the SNP would be neutralised.

The referendum would provide the necessary popular legitimacy while avoiding unnecessary expense and campaigning associated with holding two referendums (one on independence in principle, one on the proposed Provisional Constitution) in close succession.

The Provisional Constitution should be developed by a Constitutional Conference. If the next referendum is to be on the adoption of a Provisional Constitution, then the homework around that Provisional Constitution must be done well in advance of that vote.

This was the procedure adopted by the Scottish Constitutional Convention before the 1997 referendum. It was the means by which many post-independence constitutions in the Commonwealth were adopted, including those of Malta, Jamaica, Fiji etc. It is a tried and tested way of proceeding.

There is nothing to prevent the Scottish Government from summoning such a conference – there is no need for a Section 30 order or any other external permission. A Scotland (Constitutional Transition) Act could authorise the holding of a conference to draft a Provisional Constitution.

The Provisional Constitution would have to be sufficiently complete and robust to provide the necessary reassurance and public and international legitimacy and to establish a clear legal-institutional foundation for an independent Scotland.

The priority for a Provisional Constitution should be to protect Scotland’s existing institutions, by placing them upon a firm constitutional foundation, while adjusting them to the needs of an independent state.

Scotland is fortunate in that many of the building blocks of statehood are already in place: a parliament, government, courts and legal system, police, ombudsman, auditor-general and most aspects of internal administration. These institutions are basically sound. They appear to enjoy broad public support.

Some changes would be needed to make them fit the requirements of an independent state (e.g. making provision for a declaration of war and command

of the armed forces, ratification of treaties, an Electoral Commission, civil service, etc.)

No one can be forced to jump on the lifeboat. Likewise, no one can be made to participate in a Citizens’ Assembly or in developing a Scottish Constitution. However, as the UK grows more and more undemocratic and authoritarian, a place on the lifeboat may look increasingly appealing.

To those politicians who have disparaged the Citizens’ Assembly, I would say to them it is a simple choice of how you see your life: full boris-noris or a chance of salvation?

This unique column welcomes questions from readers