You are simply deploying the ‘straw man fallacy’ and not addressing the issues which the author had raised and argued in a sincere and extended way.

One of the things about science (and mathematics) is that they have developed very sophisticated models which have very high predictive power. In these fields most things behave pretty much as expected almost all the time, and when they don’t, a theory can often be tweaked to provide a better ‘fit’. Even with quantum theory and probability. Richard Feynman’s Quantum Electrodynamics is a case in point.

However, social studies – although many like to use the term social sciences – do not have that degree of rigorous modelling and predictive power. People make choices – good or bad – and bring about changes in the systems. Often, they do not know what will happen, but they do know that they want things to be different from what they are at present. Psychology, economics, politics and other behavioural fields of study have developed some reasonable theories which have some predictive validity, but the margins of error, which is soften called ‘noise’ are far wider than any science discipline would accept. So there always has to be a degree of scepticism about any of these predictions.

The former UK Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, won a huge majority in the 1959 General Election. In an interview he was rather cautious about whether he would be able to implement his manifesto, even with such a huge majority. When pressed by the somewhat sceptical interviewer, MacMillan, who was quite patrician and languid, replied, “Events, dear boy, events.” And, sure enough, events proved his caution right.

I think a good maxim for the political situation in dire times – and it is dire in many ways, is the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci’s – “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”. Essentially he is saying, remain hopeful, most people are pretty decent and humane, but think through the potential bad consequences in a rigorous way and prepare for them. They might not be as bad as you thought, but at least you have some kinds of strategies.

To return to the science/mathematics analogy, perhaps things like chaos theory and ‘self-organising systems’ might have some traction, but, only some.

By thermodynamics I mean the steady state equilibrium attained by a system (society) reaching a minimum energy state. By this I mean that it will require the minimum energy needed to maintain it. That implies requiring the least coercive force (power) to maintain, mainly because it adds the greatest value for the greatest number of people. Totalitarian states usually promise a lot, but for a lot of reasons, don’t expand the total amount of economic and social goods available to citizens. Ergo, coercive compliance steadily begins replacing persuasive compliance with the laws. This raises the internal temperature and pressure until it fails.

By kinetics I mean the rate at which the system attains equilibrium. Some systems can take seconds, others years ,and still others centuries. While I believe totalitarian states are very sub-optimal, some of them hang around for a long time.

I am still pessimistic about the direction we are headed and hope we change. My fear is in how long we will be stuck there. Your comments helped with their perspective.

As a Physics graduate (1970 – it was actually called Natural Philosophy, by the ‘ancient’ university I attended), I am intrigued by your metaphors of ‘thermodynamics’ and ‘kinetics’. The literal meaning is too strong in me and I cannot quite grasp the distinction you are making.

With regard to the constitutional issue, again, I think you are being overly pessimistic in asserting that there is once chance and no replays. We had our referendum in Scotland and although the pro-independence side lost, it came much closer than expected and has not gone away. Undoubtedly, the unionist side has, since the day after the previous referendum ratcheted up the anti-independence propaganda and, in the recent General Election the SNP lost seats, but still has a majority of MPs sitting for Scottish constituencies. It is just short of an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, but, with the Green MSPs there is a clear pro-independence majority. In Scottish Council chambers the SNP has the largest number of Councillors, the Greens, too, have made gains. With the Brexit result following majorities to REMAIN in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the situation is pretty fluid and unpredictable.

Unionists often like to claim that Mr Alex Salmond’s ‘once-in-a-lifetime-chance’ statement when urging people to vote YES was an actual policy commitment. It was an opinion based on circumstances at the specific moment and aimed at stiffening the resolve of waverers. In a democracy we can always change our minds. Although Mr Salmond got this line wrong, he certainly has not given up on independence and still expects/hopes it will be relatively soon. Mr Salmond’s statement was not a barefaced lie like the £350 million per week for the NHS if we leave, promised By Mr Boris Johnson. At primary schools in Scotland we were all told of the legend of Robert the Bruce and the spider. After a defeat by Edward Longshanks he was hiding in a cave on Rathlin Island and watched a spider building a web. Seven times it tried to string a strand of gosamer between two cornices and seven times it failed …. but, it succeeded on the eighth!

However, I agree that any proposals for constitutional change should be well thought out and tested robustly. If the electorate rejects them, we can amend them and try again.

The authors rightly indicate that many of the institutions predate 1689. It was not until 1707 that the parliamentary Union of Scotland and England came into being and, supposedly, a ‘new’ parliament of the United Kingdom was established (viz, the parliament of England, continuing). It was not until 1801 that Ireland was formally made part of this union.

While the European revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries were not ‘imported’ to the UK, there were certainly many attempts at revolution in these islands, 1715, 1745, 1798, 1820, etc, which were suppressed with severe prejudice and cruelty as malign as any of the atrocities such as those in Rwanda or the Balkans. And the effects of these continued well into the 20th century and the present. My own mother was a victim of the ‘suppression of Gaelic’; I had neighbours as a boy in Glasgow who had been on both sides of the conflicts in Ireland, which led to the independence of Ireland and, some of whom continued their malignities into this century.

So ‘Britain’ has only infrequently been ‘strong and stable’, though certainly for longer than Mrs May was!

The authors correctly identify that the Labour Party focussed, with a fair degree of success, on redistributing the fruits of their labours to the working classes. In its early days it was much more overtly constitutionally aspirational. But, the inertia of Westminster/Whitehall meant that success has been only partial – the House of Lords (partially reformed) remains, there is devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but as the Supreme Court judgment indicated, Westminster can overrule them. Labour politicians have also been seduced by the power of Westminster and many have become as strong advocates of the status quo as many of the Conservatives. They are BRITISH NATIONALISTS and proud of it – ‘Better Together’ and other such mendacities as we see the erstwhile Trotskyite, Alistair Darling in the Lords and on the board of financial institutions.

The Labour Party has no real influence in Northern Ireland and seeks to hide the fact that its sister party the SDLP has always been in favour of Irish ‘Home Rule’. And, partly by its association with Westminster parties the SDLP has lost substantial support to Sinn Fein.

In Scotland, the Labour Party crumbled and corroded internally, with corruption, cronyism, exclusivism. It was complacent because of its seemingly effortless electoral success. It existed not for the people of Scotland but for itself and some of its hangers on. In the 2014 referendum, its joyous alliance with the Tories shocked hundreds of thousands of its supporters. At a stroke its electoral hegemony vanished ‘like snaw affa dyke’ (melting snow dripping from a wall after a sudden thaw!) The Scottish branch has retreated into baleful resentment, literally blaming those who formerly voted for it – ‘the people have spoken, the BASTARDS!’ It clings to its unionist mantra, not realising that Ms Davidson’s Tories have monopolised that. It is cavilling and kneejerk oppositionist. It is fervently anti-Corbyn and anytime he makes any statement indicating even lukewarm support for some kind of Scottish self determination, they begin howling like banshees. Unless they clear out the deadwood which clogs the ranks of its MSPs and Councillors it will sulk into oblivion.

In Wales, Carwyn James seems to have realised that speaking overtly for Wales is appreciated. The Labour Party in Wales seems to have recovered from what a poll at the start of the 2017 GE indicated was an almost total demise, to substantial gains on polling day. He does not appear to be afraid to appear along with Nicola Sturgeon and to support her and receive support from her.

In the end, it will depend on how the Labour party evolves in all the parts of England. London has always had a pretty radical, creative and dynamic Labour party although several of its MPs leave a lot to be desired. There are encouraging noises coming from the North of England, particularly around Manchester. However, there is a huge tranche of Blairite-anti-immigrant MPs in the Midlands. Many of them still sound as Tory as the Tories. They are attracted by the power and personal aggrandisement which Westminster offers.

The arguments for devolution, never mind federalism, are still falling on fairly stony ground in England, because so may people still subscribe to the myth of ‘BRITAIN’

One cautionary note. Just as an executive doesn’t walk into a meeting without a clear set of objectives, messages and a head count assuring likely policy adoption, a Constitutional Convention should have clear goals and objectives and a good chance of having them adopted. It isn’t easy, for good reasons, to call a Constitutional Convention, and a less than successful one will hurt reform rather than help it. There are no replays and do-overs in this level of politics.