The age of deference is well and truly dead. Previously revered institutions are no longer held in the same unquestioning respect. In every corner of society once opaque bodies have had to embrace modernisation and transparency in order to survive.

Kezia Dugdale: Corbyn win could leave Labour 'carping on sidelines for years' Read more

From the BBC to the church to the monarchy to the House of Commons, institutions that at one time had the trust of people in our country can no longer take such things for granted. No longer is there a culture of a collective doffing of the cap and moving along without question.

People are looking for signs that politicians get it – that they can bring just as much energy, focus and determination to reforming their own industry as they do when boldly proposing changes to other people’s lives or sections of the economy and society we live in.

Let me be clear – I want to live in a United Kingdom but I want to shake it up profoundly, and that has to start with the House of Lords.

The alleged nocturnal activities of Lord Sewel have at least served one useful purpose. The debate on the future of the House of Lords has returned to the front pages again.

It’s a democratic outrage that we have a second chamber of unelected Lords. Who could say in all honesty that if we were starting from scratch we would draw the current system? That some of those who would play a pivotal role in passing the laws of our land would do so by virtue of a title they inherited from their parents or from the patronage of another politician?

The SNP has been long an opponent of the Lords, but never a proponent of what should take its place

My party has a proud record of constitutional reform. We established and strengthened the Scottish parliament, as well as the Welsh, Northern Irish and London assemblies. In his first term Tony Blair reduced the number of hereditary peers to a fraction of what they were and planned to go further.

Then the progress stopped. Labour’s reforming spirit was replaced by a small “c” conservatism. Further change was, well, too hard. “The grand scheme of things” meant energies were diverted on to other priorities and different battles.

The case for a democratically elected second chamber is unanswerable. Those who pass laws and scrutinise the work of government must be accountable to the public they serve. Only elections allow the public to have the ultimate say.

I want an elected second chamber for the UK and I believe it has to be based beyond London.

I’ll campaign for it to be based in Glasgow – where better than the biggest city of a nation that has just reaffirmed its commitment to keeping our country together? A yes city. A city bristling with political energy, art, culture, deep-rooted poverty and grand history. A city hungry for change.

Shifting location would demonstrate that power is literally on the move – a move from a clubhouse for the elite to a democratic, representative, balanced revising chamber.

The Scottish National party has been long an opponent of the House of Lords, but never a proponent of what should take its place. Because in all of the disgust and anger at the behaviour of our peers, it is all too easy to forgot why a second chamber is necessary in the first place.

Checks and balances, scrutiny, revision. A belief that majority power shouldn’t be unfettered.

David Cameron to appoint more Tory peers to the House of Lords Read more

Even the Scottish parliament’s single chamber suffers from that lack of scrutiny. With a majority of MSPs, the SNP dominates both the chamber and the committees. Post-legislative scrutiny is non-existent. Bad laws can be passed by whips doing good jobs.

Is that why the SNP has been less concerned with developing an alternative to an unelected Lords? Because it has experienced the power of power unchecked?

Ed Miliband promised a constitutional convention in his manifesto. Had he been prime minister, that work would have begun this month.

It is not enough just to be angry, to rage against the political machine. That alone will not drive change. Those who are serious about shaking up our country and who it works for need more than anger – they need an alternative. We need a second chamber, it should be elected and it can’t be in London.