We are stuck with first-past-the-post for at least a generation. It's fair to say I am disappointed.

The Conservatives can barely contain their glee. The convincing referendum result coupled with the redrawn constituency boundaries should cement them in power for years to come.

As I feared, Clegg, with his tone of injured innocence, was a complete turn-off. Every time he opened his mouth, support for the Yes campaign evaporated.

But it is the result of the Holyrood elections that takes my breath away.

Labour is smashed. The worst result since 1923.

And a majority SNP government promises to offer a referendum on independence within the term of the Parliament just elected.

Apparently, if the referendum is carried, there will be a second one on whether the terms of separation are acceptable. Hmm. I can see problems ahead.

Here in Canada, the possibility of Quebec’s secession from Canada has been addressed in the Clarity Act, passed into law over a decade ago.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the National assembly, legislature or government of Quebec do not have the right to secede unilaterally. That said, there would be an obligation on the rest of Canada to negotiate Quebec’s separation if a clear majority of Quebeckers voted for it.

This brings us back to my old hobby horse – referendum thresholds.

Would a 51% vote in favour of independence on a lowish turnout be enough?

Should the referendum be held alongside other elections – as was the case with AV?

It is time for clear rules to be agreed - now rather than later. 

Breaking up the UK is too big deal for things to be left to chance.

Lords Reform

Now that AV is out of the way, constitutional reformers will be looking forward to the forthcoming White Paper on Lords reform.

Astonishing as it may seem, Canada’s Conservatives may provide the template for reforming an unelected, patronage based Upper Chamber.

The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has long promised Senate reform and, now that he has a majority in Ottawa, we shall see if he is true to his word.

There will be much to negotiate. The Canadian provinces will have a view. And the Senators themselves, who can serve until 75, will no doubt baulk at the prospect of their own extinction.

Term limits, perhaps, as a first step.

Osama bin Laden

Not too many people are out on the streets waving placards and protesting about the slaying of Osama bin Laden. Should I be surprised?

One or two groups in Pakistan but that is to be expected. The place is infested with angry bearded men with grievances.

But it seems the rest of the Muslim world has moved on.

Bin Laden’s prescription isn’t very appealing. He is virulently anti-semitic. Anti gay. Anti drinking and gambling. Anti music (the flute of Satan). In fact, he was pretty much anti most things. And he was pro Sharia law.

All in all, not really my cup of tea.

But what happens now to the fraught relationship between Pakistan and America?

America is demanding answers. Who knew what about bin Laden? Who build the house in Abbottabad? Who owned the land? What planning permissions were given? Who paid the utility bills? The list is endless.

Since 9/11 America has given over $20 billion to Pakistan in military and civil aid. Without regular lorry loads of cash from the US and World Bank, Pakistan would be unable to pay its bills – a fact not always widely appreciated over there.

They are described as “frenemies”. They can’t stand each other but neither side feels able to walk away.