NO, this isn’t a plug for the latest Fitbit or exercise machine. It’s another way of saying that nations – like people – need to think seriously about what makes for a robust and lasting future.

So, Humza Yousef and his team are to be ­commended for their plans to have a written Scottish constitution. The people will be ­sovereign. This simple sentence means that Scottish politicians will always be answerable to the people, and not just at election times.

The First Minister clearly understands how very significant this change is in ­bringing about the improvements that this country so ­desperately needs. The other measures he ­announced will also help. It is hugely important for Scotland to say what it stands for, and what it will not stand for.

In political terms, this is also an astute move. He has now placed clear water between the ­independence movement and Westminster for those yet unconvinced about a Scottish state but who yearn for a clear commitment to ­human rights and security for the individual. In contrast, Westminster now favours security for the state.

With a clear commitment to human rights, it can also be used on doorsteps to convince those fearful of constitutional change that their safety and security are guaranteed in any new ­Scottish state, regardless of who is in government in ­Edinburgh. These are the very guarantees that Westminster has just scrapped.

These constitutional proposals are long ­overdue, and with careful management, ­Scotland will regain its place among the nations of the world – the great majority of whom also have written codified constitutions.

Countries without such constitutions are the exception. Britain, of course, is the ­greatest ­outlier because it also enables clerics to make laws. The House of Lords has seats for ­clergymen and women, simply on the basis of their religious views. Only Iran and Belize think this is a good idea.

A reviewing chamber can be helpful in ­restraining an extreme government, but this is hugely unlikely if the executive simply appoints more peers to get its way.

We have seen this nonsense at work last week. Labour plan to appoint more of their own ­lackeys to the House of Lords, despite a century-long promise to abolish it. Even a child can see this is MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – simply because the Tories would then appoint more of their numpties to re-balance the numbers.

Thus, an already grossly overloaded chamber would become even more unwieldy. All at the taxpayers’ expense. Remember, peers get over £300 per day simply for turning up. They do not have to do anything for this payment. They could check in and go shopping if they wished.

To put this in context, this £300 is roughly equivalent to the universal credit payment. And peers get travel expenses on top, unlike those on benefits.

Presently, more than 800 peers occupy the red benches. It is madness to add to these numbers. Remember too, these folks are not elected. They are making laws simply on the basis of some historical accident, or for being helpful to the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems. And you do not have to look far to see the folly of this in ­action. It is wholly indefensible to add the numpty count.

As if this nonsense is not crazy enough, did you know that the Westminster parliament still uses Norman French? While the laws ­themselves are no longer written in Norman French, that language is still used in Parliament on certain occasions.

This illustrates the root of the classic failure of the British constitution. Because it is spread over many documents and reflects ­conventions, half-remembered decisions, and scholarly ­notions, it is wide open to abuse.

Any UK Government with a working ­majority can simply overrule any constitutional ­safeguards by re-writing the rules. Because it is sovereign, Westminster marks its own papers. Control Parliament, control the constitution.

In the past, much potential abuse was ­prevented not by the constitution, but by the “good chaps” approach to government. ­Boris Johnson sank that ship, forever. To mix ­metaphors, he took one look at the ­British ­constitution’s ramshackle collection of ­conventions and rode a coach and horses through them.

Lying to Parliament or to the monarch not allowed? Who cares? Some may say: “But he was caught”. And what punishment has he ­experienced? The withdrawal of his ­Westminster pass. Really.

The many families who suffered while he and his mates cavorted drunkenly might think otherwise. Worse, some of these law-breaking, drunken louts may soon be making laws.

Scotland must be free of this horrific ­constitutional chaos. So again, the First ­Minister’s proposal is to be welcomed. We would all be wise to support it, as everyone ­benefits from a strong constitution.

The TNT show returns on July 26