On Tuesday the nation awoke to the bizarre statement by Boris Johnson that: “Devolution was the worst thing Tony Blair ever did.” Not the Iraq war in which thousands of innocents died. What really upset Johnson is Scots having modest control over their own affairs.

John Redwood MP joined his leader in endorsing this whacky view, and Downing Street signalled that while devolution is good, Scots keep misusing it. Besides, Number 10 declared; “Boris Johnson speaks for the majority of Scots”. One suspects dope heads will be in touch with Downing Street to find out what they are smoking.

Scottish Tories are now in an invidious position. They can endorse Johnson. Or repudiate him. If they opt for the former, they are truly finished. The latter course is available only to the brave, of course.

So, where is the political home for right of centre voters in Scotland? Tories of old knew what they stood for. One of these was a measure of home rule. The Empire was good, but centralisation, not so much. Efficient national housekeeping was essential but this ought to be applied with some sensitivity.

They must question why centralisation has become their party’s creed. Westminster now opposes home rule and is wedded to governance by diktat; allied to a Brexit-driven estrangement from the world.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson claims devolution 'disaster' comment was reported inaccurately

The old Tory managerial class in Scotland must be in deep despair. The Empire is largely gone, with its few surviving remnants confined to this island. As each day passes, the remains of their old creed are disappearing before their eyes.

For many of them, Westminster was a queer old bird, but it indulged them. They could be Brits in London and Scots at home. The party was run as a chumocracy, based on the time-honoured British tradition of “buggins turn”. We are all good old chaps, after all. And if the dreaded socialists obtained power, it would always be fleeting. Trinkets aplenty and seats in the House of Lords generally work to lessen revolutionary fervour.

Now they see their state has become a kleptocracy. All shreds of decent conduct have been abandoned.

“The Prime Minister is a clear and present danger to the country; a poison whose ignorance, carelessness and indifference promises the destruction of the UK.” According to journalist, Alex Massie.

As opinion polls inexorably point to a consistent majority of Scots favouring an independent Scotland; those as yet unconvinced, have suggested that forms of “home rule” – short of separation could be made to work. They point to federal states such as Canada that have so-called asymmetrical federation. This settlement permits some areas to make their own arrangements within the sovereign state.

Let’s take a look at just a few of the more obvious flaws in this argument as far as the UK is concerned. Firstly, it requires the present UK administration to abandon its drive to greater centralisation in favour of a looser structure. In short, it requires a Prime Minister who considers Devolution worse than the Iraq war, to opt for more of it. Even to the unschooled ear, this sounds like a big ask.

READ MORE: Scottish Tory conference: Alister Jack does speech next to Thatcher portrait

Secondly, it would require the UK to have a written constitution setting out and guaranteeing the allocation of powers. Such a constitution, even if it could be agreed in principle, would require public approval. One immediate difficulty in its framing would be to specify where sovereign power lies. The English tradition is with the Crown in Parliament, while Scots prefer sovereignty to be vested in the people. It is hard to see how these contrasting viewpoints could be reconciled. And any UK constitution imposed on Scotland is doomed to failure.

Another challenge to the emergence of a UK constitution is simply this: it greatly suits jobbing politicians to be free of constraints. The absence of a written constitution has enabled the present UK administration to raid the public purse with impunity. They can literally make up the constitutional rules as they go along. They can, and have, given ministers control over everyone and everything, free of penalties. As this column has spelled out in the past, the UK constitution is whatever the government of the day, with a working majority, says it is.

Why would this UK administration, or any of its successors, agree to limit themselves?

One suspects we are nearing a tipping point, hastened by a constitutionally tone-deaf UK administration, that will prompt those presently opposed to independence in Scotland to re-examine their priorities.

This Column welcomes questions from readers.

The next guest on the TNT show is journalist, Suzanne McLaughlin.

Join us on Wednesday, November 25, at 7pm