DISCUSSING the Supreme Court’s judgment that the Scottish Government lacks the authority to organise its own referendum on independence, it would be easy to fall into despair or become angry. Perhaps, though, this week’s Ipsos Mori poll, with a clear majority of respondents favouring independence, shows that it is instead leading to a renewed, quiet determination.

When the Lord Advocate concluded that she needed to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, she was seeking clarification of a narrow legal question. The judges did not argue that Scotland must remain in the UK. Nor did they consider the process by which Scotland might gain its independence.

By emphasising that only the Parliament of the United Kingdom can organise a referendum, the judges might well expect that at some point in the process by which Scotland becomes independent, there will have to be some form of parliamentary declaration in statute, which will recognise the fact.

READ MORE: The REAL Scottish Politics: Onus is on Westminster to prove Union is voluntary

In 1989, the Claim of Right had the support of something like two-thirds of the UK population. It took 10 years from the failure of the first referendum on devolution for Scottish organisations and political parties to come together and assert that devolution was the “settled will” of the Scottish people.

At the UK General Election in 1992, Scots voted in large numbers for parties which supported the creation of the Scottish Parliament. But people also voted in record numbers for the Conservative Party.

John Major stayed in Downing Street and Michael Forsyth eventually replaced Ian Lang as secretary of state for Scotland. Devolution remained a dream.

The Labour Party supported the Claim of Right. That made the situation fundamentally different from the one which we now face. Returning to power in 1997, the New Labour government took little more than four months to fulfil its pledge to hold a referendum on devolution.

If Gordon Brown’s proposals for reform, already filleted by Gerry Hassan, and Lesley Riddoch, represent the summit of the current Labour Party’s ambitions for constitutional change, then Keir Starmer will be completely ineffective in resolving the problem of Scotland’s status.

Remember that in every UK General Election from 1874 until 1910, Irish voters returned a majority of MPs who supported Home Rule. In 1886, 1892, and 1910, those Irish MPs supported a minority Liberal government. Under Gladstone, the Liberals eventually agreed to introduce a Home Rule Bill. But with the House of Lords able to exercise a veto on legislation, the first two bills – and the governments – fell.

It was only after the passage of the Parliament Act of 1911, passed in the context of Asquith’s threat to create 200 Liberal peers to force the legislation through, that the House of Lords became a revising chamber. The Irish Home Rule Act followed in 1914.

Historical parallels can be misleading. But Asquith’s Liberal government did not introduce the Parliament Act because it was finally persuaded that it was a “democratic outrage” that Ireland lacked Home Rule. The House of Lords had blocked the passage of the People’s Budget of 1909, which proposed much higher taxes, including the first estate duties, and created the first national insurance scheme, including an old-age pension, payable to everyone over 70.

In other words, Britain’s constitutional arrangements got in the way of the prime minister’s ability to implement his manifesto commitments. Breaking the logjam which was preventing Home Rule was only a side-effect.

Perhaps there is a lesson that Westminster will only deign to create a route to independence when that fits the priorities of the government of the day. Maybe we will have to wait until shortly after the Labour Party has relied on SNP votes to abolish the House of Lords.

Yes, it could be that long.

We have seen this week that Gordon Brown’s idea appears to be to let a little air out of the constitutional balloon, just enough so that it descends safely to an altitude where people in Scotland will once again turn to the Labour Party. The Yes movement should heat up the air so that the balloon rises once again. We have also had the suggestion from Sir John Curtice that the Labour Party’s enthusiastic embrace of Brexit reflects its belief that it must win in the north of England in the next election. He seemed to suggest this was rather timorous.

It is probably very helpful for the cause of independence. To those readers who are thinking that we should collapse the Scottish Government, and rush to a plebiscite election, I cannot see how that would bring much pressure to bear on the UK Government.

We add mandate upon mandate, elect Scottish governments with ever-larger majorities for independence, and the UK Government can carry on with its “Now is not the time” mantra.

When independence is the settled will of the Scottish people, it will not be necessary to worry about the franchise. The Irish solution was to elect MPs and then use them as members of the First Dail.

They negotiated with the UK afterwards, and that threw up all sorts of difficulties. But they reversed the question of legitimacy by saying, credibly, that they had reached the point where they would not accept Westminster’s rules.

A plebiscite should be the decisive moment where the electorate declares: “We are the people. And we say, ‘Yes!’.”