In a single year, the UK could have its third Prime Minister and fourth Chancellor of the Exchequer. The British nervous breakdown continues, unabated. There’s a joke going around that a bottle of washing up liquid lasts longer than three Tory leaders

History buffs will recall that Rome had five emperors in one year. In AD 193, its famed empire began descending into madness, as leaders took it upon themselves to eliminate each other and anyone else who might prove a threat. Revolting Tories have borrowed from this Roman playbook.

As the Tories sink deeper into chaos, their Scottish branch and its media friends deplore any attempt to change the system. To many, it seems an entirely rational choice to decouple from this madness. And a wholly irrational choice to persist with a scheme that appears doomed.

READ MORE: The UK’s pomp and flummery route to North Korean fascism

Despite this, the Scottish media and the Tory-led BBC are deeply wedded to the status quo. To bolster this position, they suggest there is a moral equivalence between minor mistakes by the Scottish government and the wholesale looting of £billions from the public purse taking place at Westminster.

This plundering is now being overseen by the most inept administration these islands have ever endured. Yet Tories are committed to continue, whatever the evidence.

Here’s a quote from Tory MP, Nadine Dorries, failed minister of Media and Sport, in support of the doomed Prime Minister: “MPs circulating a smorgasbord of names re who should replace Truss as PM are not taking into account the fact that they cannot foist upon the British public another Prime Minister that the public have not voted for. A totally untenable position.”

While unusual, any Tory conversion to democracy is to be welcomed. Of course Dorries is right, but sadly any decision on any future PM will again be taken by a tiny minority of extreme Tories, with scarcely a nod to democracy.

This degree of shambles has an air of the end of an era about it. Just as all empires flourish then die, it looks like the British version is nearing its end. And, in common with many of these other empires, it may expire because of internal divisions, rather than through conquest by external forces.

This has been the week of the Supreme Court. Legal niceties and procedural matters have abounded in its discussions, with the odd passing reference to democratic values and political imperatives. But mostly it’s been about whether the law, based on an unwritten constitution, can decide what is constitutional in this respect.

People from the great majority of democracies with written, codified constitutions, must view all this as very peculiar. For them, it’s not for judges to determine such matters, but the constitution itself. And it’s very important to understand that the law very much ought to be based on values and morality, not the other way around. Only in the bizarre British constitutional arrangements would a court be asked to decide a moral outcome based on nothing more than a jumble of laws, conventions and meanderings from long-dead political commentators.

READ MORE: What should we do with a failing UK descending still further into chaos?

Although many feel it will come down squarely in favour of the UK Government’s position in disallowing another referendum on Independence, I am not sure that will amount to much in the end.

As Joanna Cherry put it so eloquently: “Most people assume the Union of Scotland & England is one of consent. If it turns out to be the Hotel California where you can check out, but you can never leave, that would be undemocratic and politically and constitutionally unsustainable.”

She is backed up by constitutional expert, Professor Aileen McHarg, whom I interviewed this week on the TNT show. Professor McHarg shares the view that Westminster may decide on the constitution, but the best course of action would be for the UK government to recognise the view of the Scottish people, expressed consistently at elections, and that a referendum ought to be accepted as the most sensible course of action.

What all this amounts to is that the Scottish people have a moral right to assert their wishes. This is particularly the case for young people who were not of age to vote in 2014 but wish their view to be recognised. Of course, the sympathies of such voters are known to be heavily in favour of Independence, meaning they will likely be denied an opportunity to choose.

Of course, Westminster may continue to say, "not now". However, recall the words of Holocaust survivor, Victor Frankl: “Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose.” An independent Scotland has meaning; let’s make our purpose to bring that meaning about.

Emma Roddick MSP is next Wednesday’s guest on the TNT show

Join us 7pm on October 19 on the IndyLive channel