TOM Gordon, The Herald’s lively political editor, was at the centre of a stooshie on Saturday over his column headlined “Nicola Sturgeon should end her insulting referendum sham”. Of course, writers aren’t usually responsible for the headline over their piece, but a read through Gordon’s article suggests the sub-editor was not stretching a point.

Gordon thinks the First Minister’s independence strategy – focused on calling a second, legally binding referendum before the next Scottish Parliament elections in May 2021 – is bogus and that Nicola Sturgeon knows it. He thinks she is purposely dissembling in order to motivate and reassure the massed ranks of the Yes movement, who have become a mite restive in recent months.

Gordon also says no UK Government – led by whichever of the multitude of political dwarves elected to No 10 by the near-geriatric Conservative Party membership – is going to agree a Section 30 order granting a legally binding vote.

He also argues that even if a second independence referendum was sanctioned by Westminster – and even if the result this time was Yes, as I think it will be – then Nicola is not out of the political woods. For what I will christen the Curse of Brexit would then kick in. According to Gordon, if you can’t pick apart a 45-year-old European Union quickly and cleanly, then you certainly aren’t going to be able to unravel a 312-year-old UK union any faster.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon: This plan is ambitious AND credible – it can win us independence

Unlike some of Tom’s nationalist critics over the weekend, I do not wholly dismiss his worries. For starters – although saying this will get me into trouble – I think there was indeed a slightly cynical calculation by the SNP leadership that they had to take a public initiative on the timing of indyref2, or risk losing control of the Yes movement to popular forces around All Under One Banner.

I also think that by bending to the will of the Yes movement in the streets, the SNP leadership have put themselves in a vulnerable position. The FM’s hand has been forced and she must follow through on indyref2 even if her innate caution tells her otherwise.

I also think Tom Gordon has a point when he raises the distinct possibility of a Unionist pushback after a successful Yes vote but before the details of the independence settlement have been hammered out. This is the hard lesson of the last three years of the Brexit struggle. True, a massive 60:40 vote in favour of Scottish independence in 2020 would limit any Unionist backlash, so we need to aim for such a decisive popular majority. But if the Yes majority is under 55%, I can see grounds for the Unionist diehards to cause trouble.

Gordon suggests one way they could do this. Assuming a successful indyref2 vote next year, there would be only 12-18 months to negotiate the terms of Scotland’s exit from the UK – including trade, security pact, and divvying up the assets – before the scheduled May 2021 Holyrood election. That contest, in Gordon’s view, would become the battleground for a Unionist regrouping designed either to reverse the Yes vote (shades of the People’s Vote campaign) or simply bugger up the independence negotiations.

The obvious response is to cancel or delay the May 2021 Scottish Parliament election. But that raises the legitimate charge of running scared of democracy. It also gives London a chance to delay coming to an agreement.

In my view, a better – and more democratic solution – is to convert the scheduled Holyrood contest into the election of a Constituent Assembly. This new body would sign off on the final terms of the independence deal and write a new constitution for a free Scotland.

The National:

Embracing our new democracy honestly and thoroughly is the best way – indeed the only way – of ensuring the Scottish independence process does not end up in the same political quagmire as Brexit. That does not mean our path will be smooth. But it offers a better way forward than the introverted, Tory civil war that has dominated the UK Brexit proceedings; the bunker mentality that was Theresa May’s brief, chaotic premiership; or the gigantic fudge that constitutes Labour Party thinking on Europe.

What of Tom Gordon’s contention that the length and complexity of the Brexit negotiations prove that unpicking the UK will be a more time-consuming process than envisaged by the 2014 SNP White Paper? Tom thinks that, at best, it would take a whole parliamentary term (four or five years) to hammer out the details, even assuming good will on all sides. I don’t think we should shy away from the complexities of creating a new nation state. But Brexit is no guide to the pitfalls to be overcome in any Scottish-English negotiations. The Tory negotiating team for Brexit was fatally divided from day one as to what it wanted to achieve. As a result, the final Brexit deal emerged as a political and economic dog’s breakfast – inevitably fated to be rejected by Westminster.

This will not be the case for Scotland. Our negotiators will be committed to independence from the outset. Clarity of goal by our negotiators will avoid so much of the disasters of the Brexit process. That said, it would help limit the negotiating timetable if the Scottish Government began now – not post-referendum – to prepare the necessary negotiating papers and set up shadow fiscal and monetary agencies.

That said, Scotland faces the prospect of negotiating its independence settlement with an England engulfed by rising populist nationalism. That right-wing, English nationalism could colour the stance taken by Westminster in any independence talks. Tom Gordon adds (correctly) that a successful Scottish independence vote would most likely lead also to an Irish border poll, exacerbating the sense of siege felt by English and Ulster Unionists.

But these are hardly potent arguments for staying in the present UK. Quite the reverse: we need independence as soon as possible if we are to protect and deepen our native Scottish social democracy.

And if a populist, reactionary English regime does try to draw out or sabotage independence negotiations, Scotland has an ace in the fact that Europe beckons us with open arms. It is the timetable for securing an independent Scotland’s links with Europe that is decisive in our future economic viability, not those with London.

Gordon ends his piece by suggesting that the FM is being dishonest regarding indyref2. We’ll assume that is journalistic licence. But in truth, the course of events is no longer in the hands of politicians, even Nicola. Rather, it’s in the hands of the mass Yes movement. My advice: stay on the streets and demand Nicola marches (literally) at the head. I’m sure she’ll oblige. It would be the best way of replying to Tom Gordon.