I WAS in Northern Ireland yesterday — a strange location given the independence debate in Edinburgh and the sudden outbreak of violence at Westminster.

Perhaps though, it was a lucky choice of venue on several counts.

For one thing, it got me away from what appears to have been an underwhelming exchange in the Scottish Parliament. I confess I only stayed long enough on Tuesday to hear Nicola Sturgeon lead off and Ruth Davidson respond – but it was fairly predictable stuff and I’m told it didn’t get much better before the terrible news from Westminster prompted the suspension of debate.

There appeared to be very little visionary stuff – no list of ways in which an independent Scotland might benefit from Brexit by wooing banks, law firms and EU nationals set to leave London, by negotiating a better deal for Scotland’s fishing communities and by investing in subsea cables for island-based renewable energy – a decision Westminster’s been ducking for decades. Presumably the First Minister is keeping her powder dry to land parliamentary approval before she breaks free from the confines and constraints of the narrow Brexit debate – but if not now then when? Likewise SNP MSPs were unusually quiet in the face of gung-ho, provocative comments by the opposition – perhaps instructed not to react and risk lowering the tone of the debate. Of course the tone of indyref2 needs to be different. But there’s a difference between a robust but respectful tone and an unnatural, kicked-cat silence.

It was all a bit of a puzzle and a disappointment.

Across in Belfast though the true importance of Scotland’s efforts became more readily apparent. We are in many ways, Northern Ireland’s big sister – larger, more united and more sceptical of the UK Government’s promises about a rosy life post Brexit. The concession of an independence referendum for Scots would have a major knock on effect for Northern Ireland, perhaps hastening some kind of joint authority over the whole island between the Irish and UK Governments and maybe even hastening a poll over reunification – though that is still a very long way off.

Similarly, a deal to keep border-free trade and movement in Ireland post Brexit would create an enormous precedent for the way a Scottish-English border could operate after independence.

First though, both nations have to compare scripts.

Sitting beside me on the Question Time-style panel was the former Northern Ireland secretary and current Tory MP Owen Paterson who assured the audience in the BBC’s Spotlight TV programme there would be no problems whatsoever with an internal Irish border post Brexit. Just none.

“To have a hard border would be an absolute nonsense,” he said.

“Having different tariffs and tax regimes north and south of the border need not create problems,” he said. “Look at Canada and America, Russia and Finland. If they can harmonise arrangements, the two parts of Ireland certainly can.”

Why?

“Because there is such huge trade involved, there will be a settlement.”

Well that’s very interesting.

Because transpose all those situations from Ireland to Scotland and suddenly the Tories can-do attitude becomes decidedly no-can-do.

The border between an independent Scotland and England would be harder than the Berlin Wall. Different tariffs north and south of Gretna Green would be so difficult, powers over agriculture and fisheries returning from Brussels would have to be re-reserved to London instead of being devolved to Edinburgh. Fair’s fair, old chap. One UK needs one tax regime and set of tariffs for foodstuffs and fish.

And wouldn’t the mere fact of cross-border trade persuade iScotland and rUK to reach a settlement pretty quickly a la Ireland? Not on your nelly.

Well lordy, lordy.

What is effortless and problem-free in Northern Ireland is still being thrown back in the face of Scottish independence campaigners as a set of insuperable trading obstacles.

But there’s a common feature in the two Celtic nations – no one is rebutting these dodgy Westminster lines.

Now in Northern Ireland there may be an excuse.

On Monday, the Northern Ireland secretary may call for new elections (the third set in six months) or impose direct rule from London after the power-sharing government broke down in the wake of the cash-for-ash scandal last month. That may seem to be an entirely Irish problem but it has possible repercussions for Scotland. It’s not good for any of the devolved assemblies or parliaments to be dissolved or to conclude that direct rule by Westminster is better than finding common cause locally. Happily Theresa May doubtless agrees. Faced with Brexit and a new Scottish independence referendum, she needs the prospect of sinking more political capital and civil servant time into running Northern Ireland like a hole in the head.

So the UK Government is trying to encourage a deal between the warring parties at Stormont – event though that might work to benefit the electoral chances of Sinn Fein.

The Unionist First Minister Arlene Foster is personally pro Brexit but leads a nation that voted to stay in Europe. As a result – and with an eye on the chances of a second, successful Scottish independence poll – Sinn Fein are calling for a “border poll” to decide if a United Ireland is the best way forward and the Irish opposition party Fianna Fail has published a plan for joint working across the island while retaining separate governments in Dublin and Belfast to avoid problems over immigration, tariffs or travel that result from Brexit.

It’s heady stuff – unthinkable just a few years back – but if Brexit has changed the balance of risk surrounding Scottish independence it has radically transformed attitudes towards Irish reunification.

Last year golfer Rory McElroy put it succinctly; If I’m Northern Irish, what’s better? To be part of the UK and not be in the EU? Or to be in a united Ireland and still belong to the EU? People are going to have to weigh that up.”

Certainly, a BBC poll last September suggests 63 per cent of people in Northern Ireland support staying in the UK whilst only 22 per cent would vote to join a United Ireland. But that poll was taken six months ago – a long time in British politics.

In Northern Ireland – just as Scotland – it’s up to the UK Government to decide if a border poll is appropriate. The test under the Good Friday Agreement is that the secretary of state for Northern Ireland should call a border poll “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland”.

Astonishingly, that moment could come much sooner than anyone expected due to long-predicted demographic change which means the nationalist community now outnumbers the unionists. That’s why the last election saw Sinn Fein finish within one seat of the DUP and why another election would be hugely unpredictable. Voters might punish Sinn Fein for intransigence in knuckling down and doing another power-sharing deal with the unionists – or the slow population shift might produce a tiny Sinn Fein majority in Northern Ireland. And that historical change would be far more epic than the abrupt end of Scotland’s long-lasting love affair with Labour.

It still isn’t likely – but it’s possible.

Indeed that’s the point. Change is happening across the UK for all sorts of reasons, including Brexit.

What’s needed are folk who can visualise change before it happens and describe that change vividly in ways that matter to voters – not via arcane points of constitutional law, no matter how often they are raised and rattled by opposition parties. Scots must hear that vision described by the Scottish First Minister and every member of her cabinet – very soon.