THE late Donnie Stewart, SNP president, SNP Westminster group leader, redoubtable and devoted MP for the Western Isles and – the term is exact given his courtesy and generous but firm principles – all round gentleman used to say that if he could get everyone in Scotland to spend half an hour in the House of Commons public gallery, a virtually unanimous vote for independence would quickly follow.

I thought of the remark this week when watching the insultingly patronising performance of Penny Mordaunt when responding to business questions but it would apply equally strongly to Keir Starmer’s smug smirk at Ian Blackford’s entirely accurate mention of Brexit, to the high-handed malice of the Speaker towards John Nicolson and to the bad-mannered arrogance of Alister Jack and “Lord” Malcolm Offord at the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Offord, a man unknown across the entire country, was elevated by a Tory prime minister just more than a year ago not just to lifetime membership of a legislative chamber, but also to government office without (of course) ever securing the approval of his fellow citizens.

You would have thought a modicum of humility, or at the very least charm, would therefore be the appropriate response when being questioned by democratically elected representatives with considerably more political experience, but instead he was combative to the point of rudeness – though his sneering patrician manner was still nothing compared to that of the worst ever Secretary of State for Scotland, sitting by his side.

The most lamentable part of it was probably Jack’s reference to ducks. According to the Secretary of State for Scotland, a man with the resources of the entire civil service at his fingertips, the moment for a referendum on Scottish independence will come not when clear and well-considered criteria are met but only when he ascertains in his waters that Scotland should have such a thing.

This will not depend on the democratic will of the Scottish people expressed in elections nor by votes in the Scottish Parliament. It will simply be self evident to him – in his words “it’s the duck test”. “If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck and it waddles like a duck then it’s probably a duck.”

Of course, Jack’s usual view of a duck is along the sights of a shotgun, he being a keen advocate of “country sports”. But the remark is actually very reminiscent of the old colonial approach to self-determination.

It was, to take only one example, the handful of officials and politicians in the British Raj who regularly told the well more than 200 million Indians in the early part of the 20th century that they – and they alone – would know when the people were suitably advanced to take the awful responsibility of self government. Until then, best just to do as they were told.

There has been much debate about the use of colonial comparisons since the Supreme Court judgment. The usual Unionist commentariat desperately ridicules such language, asserting that the people of Scotland are not oppressed, that democracy is not being denied and that any view to the contrary is self-indulgent posturing for political purposes.

Scotland certainly does not meet the classic definition of a colony but the way the Westminster government and Parliament behaves towards Scotland now has strong parallels with the approach taken during the last years of the colonial era.

Accepting the principle that independence can be chosen if a nation so wishes, but ensuring that those in charge should be, and should always remain, the sole arbiter and gatekeeper of the process is straight out of the colonial playbook.

So is the de-legitimising of any discussion of the topic and expressions of amused (but beneath the scarcely concealed surface, angry) contempt for its very mention and for those who dare to do so is strikingly familiar – as is the false framing of such people as far distant from the pressing concerns of ordinary people.

Deeply annoying and frustrating as it is to watch and hear such arrant disdainful nonsense, their articulation is actually good news because such tactics have never worked. The approach failed wherever it was tried and it is failing now. It doesn’t need opinion polls to prove the point – history does so very clearly.

IAN Blackford has been a good friend of mine for a long time as has his wife who was my councillor when I lived in South Lanarkshire. I look forward to working closely with him as we continue to build the independence case and he is just the person to take on the very important business ambassador role.

He has been an excellent leader for the Westminster group but it is now entirely up to them to choose his successor. They will, I am sure, be doing so with care and thought, looking at their strategy going forward not least because the context has been changed by the Supreme Court judgment.

The thin – very thin at times – veneer or pretence of inclusion and equality has now finally been abandoned by the UK parties at Westminster. That is a sign not of their strength but of their weakness and there needs to be a conscious recognition of that fact, coupled with an appropriate day to day response.

Such activity must dovetail with the work of the national movement as a whole, for which the urgent challenge is to choose the right plebiscite election, looking at all the options and listening to the views of not just parliamentarians and party members, but also the wider Yes family.

For me, that means all those who are willing to be part of that family and are prepared to commit to constructive engagement that enhances and advances the cause not simply repeats old arguments and grievances.

The Supreme Court judgment was the end of a chapter in the story of Scotland’s journey to independence.

Time to start writing a new one.