The world has no trust in Boris Johnson, so why should Scotland?

From The Daily Mail to The Times with pitstops at assorted websites it seemed that suddenly last week pension rights were the only indy issue in town.

This Better Together 2.0 strategy is ­because the lads – almost always the lads – have jaloused that since the folks most reluctant to plight their troth to Yes are of pensionable age, that’s where the most plausible fear might be induced.

And indeed pensions, like borders and currency are areas where the next indy ­campaign has to do the hard yards and come up with honest, properly researched answers.

Many Scots need no more persuasion that the sooner we decouple from the ­travelling circus down south the better. Others will want more chapters and more verses before taking the plunge.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: We must not shy away from hard questions ahead of indyref2

This week’s paper on the post indy ­border relationship between Scotland and England and Scotland and the EU single market is a useful example of how to meet pertinent questions head on. An honest ­appraisal of the challenges of being in a ­different ­regulatory regime from England set against the benefits of being able to trade once more in the massive European marketplace.

Which brings us, not at all ­coincidentally, to the week’s ongauns in Nothern ­Ireland. There are special circumstances in that corner of the UK as we are all well aware. Though I’ve never quite understood why politicians of either tradition should ­consider it better to have their patch ­administered by Westminster civil servants rather than their own elected politicians.

The Stormont Assembly was hard enough won, and the peace process so ­sensitively constructed, you wonder why anyone would want to put the future of either at risk.

Then again the person who waved a matchbox around the powder keg was none other than the UK Prime Minister, a man for whom his word is not so much his bond, as yesterday’s disposable soundbite.

So anxious was the artfully tousled one to “get Brexit done” and appear like ­Superman to Theresa May’s Mrs ­Micawber that he doubled down on some of the biggest lies of his career. And that bar is not low.

There will be no border between ­Britain and Northern Ireland he trumpeted to the NI Unionists even as he was signing a deal with the EU which constructed one. But that didn’t count because it was ­underwater and he had his fingers crossed behind his back.

The EU, as anxious as anyone not to rock the peace process boat, explained in some detail that since the Republic of ­Ireland was still in the EU, there would have to be border checks somewhere ­between that trading area and the UK one. As we know, detail is not the PM’s strong suit. (Many people are now searching for that elusive virtue.).

Thus was born the Northern Ireland Protocol, a deal struck with the EU; an international treaty designed to square an unprecedented circle within the ­European Union.

You may recall an interesting piece of footage circulating at the time. There was BJ, fresh from putting his signature to the new border, carousing with some ­Unionist types. Telling them that of course there was no border. Of course there would be no checks. They could bin any paperwork presented, or send it to him.

Now sometimes, when the PM is ­telling porkies – his default position – it ­concerns matters of little import. This was ­different. This was risking a peace process which had taken two previous British premiers – one Tory one Labour – long years to negotiate with the assistance of an American President and the then Irish Taoiseach.

This was selling out the majority of Northern Irish citizens who had voted to remain in the EU. And all the while ­Michael Gove, he of the silver forked tongue, was telling them unblushingly that they had the best of both worlds.

Still in the EU single market, still in the UK. Two worlds which were, however, unavailable to the other areas in the UK which had voted overwhelmingly to stay in Europe. Including ourselves. Because he and his partner in Vote Leave crime had got Brexit done.

So much for the history. This last week something even more remarkable ­unfolded. The DUP First Minister threw in the towel, saying that up with the ­Protocol his party would not put. This followed his agricultural minister – the man who lasted for almost a month as his party’s leader – unilaterally declaring that no more checks on goods from the UK to NI would be done.

Since this was a) a clear breach of international law and b) rather exceeded his legislative competence, you might imagine that the boss class at Westminster would come down like the veritable ton of bricks on his impudence. You know, rather like they did when Holyrood did something rash like embedding Children’s Rights in Scots law.

Instead the Northern Ireland minister airily observed that it was a matter for the NI executive. Pause here to observe ­widespread smacking of legal gobs.

This laissez faire attitude to an Assembly with notionally far fewer powers than the devolved administrations elsewhere caused a bit of a flurry in many Scottish doocots.

It seemed the very same UK ­Government who threatened Holyrood with ­parliamentary fire and brimstone if it ever dared think for itself, was ­intensely ­relaxed about Northern Ireland ­tearing up a treaty devised and signed by ­Westminster.

If you were of a cynical turn of mind (moi?) you might wonder if this new laid back approach to devolution was ­because the UK Government knew in ­advance of the rebellion. Might even have given it a nod and a wink. Then it could ­return to the negotiations with the EU on the ­Protocol pleading unforeseen new ­difficulties.

You might wonder too if the Northern Ireland minister would be so hands off of his own accord without getting advance permission from the PM.

No matter. Of much more interest to me is the psychology of all this. Let’s ­suppose there was no collusion. Let’s suppose there is a new world order in which ­fortune favours the devolutionary bold. Let’s suppose Holyrood tells the PM where to stuff his section 30 and see what transpires.

Alternatively, if a backstage deal has been done, let’s use it as evidence that Westminster cannot resist double ­dealing. One thing we do know for sure, is that if we get into negotiations with Boris ­Johnson over the terms and timing of any referendum we could not trust him as far as we could throw him – and the diet doesn’t seem to be going well.

It was the legendary Sam Goldwyn who observed that “a verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”. Now we know that Johnson isn’t just incapable of keeping to his spoken assurances, but the painfully negotiated, written ones as well.

I can understand the anxiety of those who want to ensure that any independence referendum, or any other form of self assertion should ideally meet with ­international approval.

Yet we are now at a juncture where the international community knows that the Prime Minister of the UK is a ­mendacious shyster. Why would they trust any deal he does with Scotland? Why would ­Scotland?

The time for pretending that the 2014 “gold standard” can be replicated has long gone. With Johnson there is no gold standard. There are no pledges he won’t break; no damage he won’t countenance to save his sorry skin.

As the EU has learned, however many I’s are dotted, however many T’s are crossed, this PM will have no compunction about scorching the earth he’s promised.