ONE of the most persistent features of post-indyref Scotland is that those who lost are getting on with life, while those who won can’t seem to get over it.

Political parties on the Yes side have seen extraordinary growth in membership, and while individual Yes voters often disagree about other aspects of politics, many have held onto their optimism that a better society is possible and that independence remains an idea worth working for. Meanwhile, the parties which formed the Better Together campaign appear to be facing crisis after crisis, losing not only votes and seats but also any sense of purpose beyond their opposition to independence.

The debate on Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA) is a case in point. While there’s a range of views about what it means, how quickly it could be achieved and whether it even should be, it has seemed over recent weeks that nine times out of 10 it was Labour or Conservative voices shouting about it. This reached absurd levels at Westminster, with Labour MPs not only denouncing it as an idea but also demanding over and over again that the SNP must commit to it; this was followed by a hard right Tory MP goading the SNP into voting for his own amendments to deliver it… albeit with motives of pure mischief.

Much of that was of course a phoney war. There was no chance that the UK Government was about to agree to FFA, and the SNP knew that. In my view, they didn’t need to allow this cacophony of faux outrage to force their hand. The cautious approach to exploring greater fiscal autonomy in the long term seems to me reasonable, and I have serious concerns about the consequences if FFA or something like it was rushed through. If anyone who was on the Yes side of last year’s referendum sees fiscal autonomy as the “next best thing”, I’d have to say be careful what you wish for.

All the way through that referendum I expressed misgivings about the SNP’s proposal for a currency union, and I questioned whether Scotland would truly have the freedom to develop its own economic policy within the inevitable constraints of such a union (if it had even been achieved).

Without our own currency there would have been few macro-economic levers available to a future Scottish Government, and our response to circumstances would always have been tied to decisions that were taken across the UK as a whole.

There is of course a case to be made for taking such decisions across the UK – but it is the case for the full political union we are currently in. The benefits from doing so are, for me, outweighed by the need for a change of economic direction.

This is in large part why I voted Yes, and I know of some people who share my objectives but ended up voting No precisely because of their rejection of the currency union plan.

Now, looking at the various arguments which have been made for full fiscal autonomy, I find myself asking familiar questions. With full responsibility for taxation, how could we smooth out the year-to-year variations without the ability to build up our own national reserves, or determine borrowing and money supply without reference to another government?

With a diverging economy how could we exercise any real power, especially in difficult circumstances, without seeing interest rates set based on Scottish priorities? What does fiscal autonomy really mean without any control of monetary policy?

Of course it’s not only the Scottish perspective which prompts these questions.

The tortuous negotiations between Greece and the rest of the EU show just how fraught the situation can become when economic circumstances are divergent and people vote for different economic policies, but their government is independent in fiscal terms alone and within a currency union is unable to act. The pressure for greater political union to accompany the currency union grows irresistible.

The constraints on what should be domestic policy become ever tighter, and the democratic right of people to choose a government with the economic priorities they want is undermined, perhaps fatally.

I’m very happy to see unity of purpose between countries on many issues of social provision, human rights, environmental regulation, labour standards and so on. I see a far stronger case for some form of political union without an economic union, than I do for the reverse. I make this argument in relation to Europe, and I think it applies within what’s currently the UK too.

If a fully developed proposal for greater fiscal autonomy for Scotland is developed (people seem happy to use the name, without that detail existing) I will certainly approach it with an open mind, but I’ll be looking at the fine print with a critical eye.