FOR some time now I have been getting a bit irritated at the way the word federalism has been bandied about in relation to recent changes in the constitution of the UK.

Many commentators, in London as well as in Scotland, have claimed that we are acquiring at least a quasi-federal structure, which could pave the way in time to a formal federal system, such as exists under the US Constitution of 1787 or under the German Grundgesetz of 1949 – the two foremost, because so successful, federal states in the world today. The examples of Canada and Australia further show it might be easy enough to graft federalism on to a parliamentary system inherited from Westminster.

Academic heavyweights such as Vernon Bogdanor, the tutor at Oxford of David Cameron (evidently political common sense was not one of the topics on the course), have lent their weight to the notion. In his book, The New British Constitution, Bogdanor praises to high heaven the Human Rights Act, by which in 1998 the Parliament at Westminster had incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into English law. He saw there a sort of repeat of the American Bill of Rights, the short name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution passed by Congress in 1791 at the behest of James Madison, a slave-owning member for Virginia and future president.

It changed the Constitution from a mere electoral mechanism to one of the basic documents of modern democracy in the western world. It set human rights in the stone of which the American republic was to be constructed, rather than leaving them as a mere ornament that governments might put up or take down at will.

Twenty years ago, Scottish democracy went one better than English democracy because the European Convention was then made a part of the Scotland Act that re-established our Parliament. Westminster can just repeal its own Human Rights Act if it wants to, and this is what Theresa May reportedly wants to do after the next General Election due in 2020.

But Holyrood cannot repeal the European Convention because it is built into the architecture of devolution. Scots can only be rid of the resulting obligations on human rights if we ask Westminster to delete the relevant clauses of the Scotland Act – or, as now appears inevitable, if it goes ahead and deletes them whatever we think or say. So much for the claim by the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, that Scotland’s voice is being heard “loud and clear”.

If there were hopes that Scotland might be able to defend its existing commitments to human rights, they were dashed by the decisions of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. I welcomed the defeat for the UK Government on the main point at issue, whether parliamentary approval was needed before the UK triggered Article 50 and informed the EU of its intention to leave. I was not so happy at the defeat for the Scottish Government and its wish for Holyrood to be given a voice in this process. The justices of the Supreme Court ruled that Brexit belongs to the sphere of the UK’s foreign relations, which are a matter entirely for Westminster.

The whole package of judgments was an assertion of absolute parliamentary sovereignty as clear and ringing as any in the entire history of the UK. The Lord Advocate, James Wolffe, had argued that Scotland had a different tradition, but the Supreme Court just ignored him. By implication, it confirmed that the UK Parliament continues the English Parliament of the period before 1707, to which the entry of Scotland into the Union with England has made no difference. In fact the Supreme Court ended up closer to the position of the Advocate General, Lord Keen, even though he lost the case before it. In his earlier pleadings, he had argued that the Scottish Parliament possessed no sovereignty of its own, but was entirely a creature of UK statute.

The Sewel convention, by which Westminster is supposed to consult Holyrood about legislation affecting it, could be ignored at will. All the stuff we had heard about entrenching the position of Holyrood, or even guaranteeing its future existence, was equally vacuous. Westminster rules OK.

IN other words, the 40 years we have gone through of arguing about the UK constitution, and the 20 years of amending it by legislation, have made no difference whatever to its basic status. The old whore of absolute parliamentary sovereignty, though raddled with age and reeking of decay, still reigns supreme over the British brothel. In fact she has just ejected some troublesome European intruders, and snuffed out the hopes of release from her fetid embrace of the assorted Scots, Welsh and Irish she keeps locked up in the attic rooms of her house of ill repute while they await their next rapist.

We see now that there is nothing in the least federal about the UK constitution as it has recently developed: the absolutist principle and mechanics remain intact. We cannot hope to reach the distant shore of federalism one of these fine days because the good ship Britannia has not even left its haven of parliamentary sovereignty, in fact it remains tied up at just the same berth as before. All the talk of constitutional evolution has been so much hot air.

I would expect a constitutional clampdown to follow this judgment of the Supreme Court. The UK Government was defeated in its immediate purpose of bypassing Parliament but there can’t be much serious doubt it will get its way in the end: all you basically need, after all, is a majority in the House of Commons – and Brexit will then happen whatever the huffing and puffing from beyond the chamber.

Afterwards, I bet, revenge will be taken on those who have been obstructive: I don’t think Theresa May runs a forgiving kind of government. And I would not be at all surprised if Westminster passed some Scottish legislation in the teeth of opposition from Holyrood, just to show who is boss again.

For Scotland the whole business reeks of disaster. After more than 40 years, the open window from our British prison is to be closed. During that time Scottish commissioners have taken their seats in Brussels, Scottish judges have dispensed their wisdom on a continental scale, Scottish MEPs have enlivened the parliamentary proceedings in Strasbourg. From Scottish farmers and fishermen to Scottish financiers and fashionistas we have learned to think and act as Europeans.

All that is over. We will be back confined in our provincial cell, with only one other country to worry about. The Nationalist intellectual, Paul Henderson Scott, once wrote a book called In Bed with an Elephant, describing the relationship of Scotland to England. Now the elephant has turned into a rogue.

At least for the Scottish Government the road ahead is clear, but it will be a stony road. All possible compromises, including the federal compromises, between Leave and Remain have vanished. If we want to get out of the UK and back into Europe we will need a second referendum on independence.