AT the outset I want to make it clear that I bear no ill-will towards Jim Sillars. I would suggest many pro-independence activists and supporters who became involved in politics during the 2014 referendum are unaware of his immense contribution to the cause.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, he blazed a pioneering trail by fusing socialist principles with the idea of Scottish independence. He thus opened the door for much of the Scottish left to follow that path.

READ MORE: Fury as UK Government fails to give Scotland a voice on new rail board

Sillars also helped make the SNP relevant to working-class people, notably via his sensational victory in the Govan by-election in 1988, which may well have changed the course of history. Sillars’s landslide victory in that Labour citadel was – according to people who were on the ground on both sides – based on one of the most awe-inspiring election campaigns Scotland had ever witnessed. Yes, the candidate was supported by activists from all over Scotland. But Sillars’s barnstorming style, evoking the spirit of James Keir Hardie, Jimmy Maxton and Red Clydeside, together with his relentless condemnation of Labour’s refusal to take a stand against the looming poll tax, electrified the streets of Govan.

His victory put the SNP back in business after almost a decade of isolation. It generated shockwaves right through the Labour movement, galvanising the pro-devolution wing of the party in Scotland and forcing British Labour’s mainstream to come up with a more advanced form of devolution than it had ever before contemplated.

In that sense, perhaps it’s Jim Sillars’s statue that should be standing at the top of Buchanan Street in Glasgow, rather than that of Donald Dewar. Sillars, despite personal tragedy, made a powerful late intervention in the 2014 referendum campaign, coining the phrase “Hope over Fear”, which others then adopted, and helping the Yes movement drive further into Labour’s traditional support base.

READ MORE: First Minister leads business mission to German amid hard Brexit threat

I’ve disagreed with a lot he’s said over the past few years, from his support for fracking and the oil industry to his hard-line pro-Brexit stance, but I don’t see Jim Sillars as a traitor or an enemy. I believe the Yes movement has to be big enough and strong enough to deal with the issues rather than respond to criticism with personal insults.

The essence of Sillars’s recent pronouncements seems to be that there is no power grab and that the Scottish Government is making a fuss over nothing, that this is a trivial matter and that it makes sense to allow Westminster to have the final say on UK-wide matters that are effectively reserved to the European Union. He seems to be defending the absolute sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament – and forgetting all the promises and spin in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum: that we’d be “as close to federalism as is possible”; the Scottish Parliament would become a permanent institution of “Home Rule”; and the Sewel Convention would become statute, implying Westminster would never legislate in devolved areas without the Scottish Parliament’s consent.

Of course the Smith Commission, despite the gloss put on it at the time, upheld the sovereignty of Westminster. Westminster created the Scottish Parliament and it could take it away. The reality is, in terms of the UK constitution, Westminster can grab power any time it likes.

Devolution relies on successive UK Governments upholding its principles. And all Scotland can do is trust that all UK Governments will do that.

As a recently qualified lawyer, one thing I have learned is the crucial importance of absolute precision in the wording of complex arrangements. Back in the 1920s, the novelist PG Wodehouse popularised the term “gentlemen’s agreement” – an informal arrangement based on mutual trust and relying on the honour of both parties.

Jim Sillars seems to be satisfied that such an agreement will suffice to see the devolution settlement through Brexit and beyond. But the damage has already been done. By deciding unilaterally to hold on to powers coming from the EU in devolved areas for up to seven years, the current UK Government has shattered the very bedrock of devolution. Would any business enter into a seven-year contract underpinned by nothing more than a verbal assurance that everything will be fine and dandy?

And does a highly experienced political operator such as Jim Sillars really believe that any Westminster Tory Government can be trusted to act with honour and integrity in its dealings with Scotland?

This is the Tory Party whose whole history has been wrapped up with the defending the rich and powerful from progressive change. The antecedents of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Theresa May opposed ordinary people having the right to vote on the grounds they couldn’t be trusted with a ballot paper.

They deported trade unionists and locked workers up for going on strike. They resisted votes for women. They obstructed Home Rule for Ireland until it was too late. They fought to keep Scotland steeped in feudalism, resisting each and every attempt at land reform. They blocked Home Rule for Scotland in dozens of parliamentary votes. They campaigned feverishly against devolution in 1979, and again in 1997.

Even if Jim Sillars thinks Theresa May is a reasonable sort with no hidden agenda, can he say the same about some of her colleagues and rivals at the top of the Tory Party? And does anyone, anywhere know what the make-up of the House of Commons will be over the next seven years, as real-life Brexit kicks in and rampant English nationalism runs riot.

As constitutional expert Professor Aileen McHarg pointed out a few days ago: “To be absolutely clear, this is a unilateral adjustment by Westminster of Holyrood’s legislative competence in a way that creates the potential for future unilateral adjustments of Holyrood’s legislative competence by UK Ministers. That’s a big deal.”

Indeed it is. As the UK Government itself points out in justification of its position: “This is an abnormal situation”. So abnormal that they devoted a marathon session lasting all of 15 minutes to consider the brewing constitutional crisis.

Have the SNP utilised this crisis to advance the cause of independence? Of course they have. And quite right too, because this rather arcane dispute – the detail of which remains a mystery to most people – underlines one essential fact of devolution. Scotland is subordinate to its larger, more powerful neighbour and always will be while the Union survives. Holyrood is not an equal partner with Westminster but an underling. As Enoch Powell once famously said: “Power devolved is power retained.”

Before the 2014 referendum, we were promised the sun, the moon and stars if only we trusted in Westminster. The United Kingdom would guarantee continued membership of the EU. Scotland could look forward to decades of stability as an equal partner within a stable UK.

So, should we trust the Tory Government to do the right thing by Scotland as Brexit unravels? Personally, I wouldn’t trust some of these guys to go the messages.