On the face of it, it all looked a wee bit pessimistic: discussing how to resolve future arguments between Westminster and the Scottish parliament, even before the Holyrood parliament is up and running.

But, as they say, fore-warned is fore-armed, and it was a discussion the Lords entered into with gusto this week, as they continued their deliberations on the Scotland Bill.

There's nothing more that peers like than to sink their teeth into a debate with important constitutional implications.

Add the chance to discuss complex, and some would say esoteric, legal points as well, and you know there's going to be a fair amount of interest from those inhabiting the red leather benches.

The future relationship between Holyrood and Westminster, and what happens when the two fall out, qualifies on both counts. Hence the lordly interest in Wednesday's debate.

Irvine may face ban

Under the government's current plans, any future disputes between the two parliaments after devolution will be settled by something called the judicial committee of the Privy Council.

In very basic terms the Privy council is made up of the great and good of the political world-- inhabited by politicians who've been around and know the ropes.

According to the former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Steel of Aikwood (himself a privy councillor) the judicial committee of the priviy council is too big and unwieldly a body to carry out the function efficiently.

Instead, together with his Liberal Democrat colleagues, he was proposing that a new, smaller Constitutional Court be set up to bang heads together between Westminster and Holyrood when rows flare up.

Warming to their theme, the Liberals also wanted the Lord Chancellor - the senior law officer in England and Wales - to be banned from being involved in resolving cross-border disputes. Now the Lord Chancellor just happens to be Lord Irvine.

When he's not admiring the wallpaper in his newly-renovated apartments at Westminster, Lord Irvine is a key figure in Tony Blair's government. Althjough he has no judicial role in Scotland, he is also a Scot and happens to have a keen interest in devolution.

The Liberal Democrats stressed that it was nothing personal against Lord Irvine - they wanted all lord chancellors banned from playing a role in settling future fisticuffs between London and Edinburgh.

Judges weigh up the evidence

But Lord Irvine decided he should enter the debate and put his oar in from the woolsack.

In the end it was all a bit academic. Without Conservative support, the Liberals Democrats knew they couldn't defeat the government, so didn't even bother to push it to a vote, but everyone enjoyed themselves in a two-hour debate.

In the coming week, the lords continue their scrutiny of the Scotland Bill.

The government is likely to come in for more criticism of its plans to allow the Scottish parliament to sack judges. Already legal luminaries from north of the border are massing ready to travel down to the Lords to give their views.

Later in the week, peers discuss the controversial issue of abortion.