A reflection on where we are almost 10 years on from indyref

Let’s start with some ­achievements. Firstly, there is a growing ­awareness that the constitution matters. Merely declaring ­independence in the absence of a proper ­constitutional settlement will not cut it.

Independence is not just a matter of ­separation, undoing the Union, or the ­severing of political ties with Westminster. Nothing much can be solved without independence, but independence in and of itself solves nothing. Many countries have become independent and thrived. Others have stagnated or regressed. The difference depends on whether they have been able to establish a stable, inclusive, ­legitimate state which is willing and able to promote the public interest.

In the same way, we cannot make ­constitutional decisions with a calculator, but all our calculations depend on constitutional ­decisions. Will an independent Scotland be richer or poorer than Scotland in the Union? If Scotland is well governed, it will be richer. If badly governed, poorer.

Everything depends on us establishing a Scottish state that will be better than the British state at serving the public interests of the ­people of Scotland. Democracy, constitutionalism, good governance – these are the foundations by which Scotland’s independence will bring about beneficial development.

READ MORE: 19 Scottish fish farms posing 'high risk' to wild salmon

When this column started, few people ­understood this. The constitution was seen as “nice to have”, an “optional extra”, but ­peripheral to the main cause of independence. It was seen as something that could be put off until one day in the future. Now it is widely ­understood that the constitution is absolutely essential, integral, and central to the case for independence.

Secondly, there’s a stronger consensus around what a future Scottish constitution might look like. There are some constitutional design ­options – such as whether to have a ­second ­chamber or whether to become a ­republic – still to be decided, but there is a general ­acceptance that Scotland should be a parliamentary ­democracy and looking rather like other smallish parliamentary democracies across northern Europe.

It might be a little more like Ireland in some particulars, and a little more like Norway in others, but those, broadly, are the parameters within which the discussion takes place.

Thirdly, there’s a recognition that we might need to do it in two stages. Stage one would be an ­interim ­constitution ready to go from day one of ­independence. Stage two would be a final constitution, ­expanding upon the first draft, which might be reached by a longer, more inclusive, post-independence process.

The Scottish Government’s hugely ­welcome white paper on the constitution, ­number four in its Building A New Scotland series, points out a credible way ahead. It sets out the basics of an interim constitution and then presents ­potential options, and processes, for future change.

Fourth, the inadequacies of the British system have been exposed. Reliance upon convention and tradition coupled with gentlemanly good behaviour and political self-restraint has been shown to be an inadequate defence of liberty, institutional integrity, and good governance.

Since 2016 – and particularly since 2019 – we have seen the disintegration of the once much-vaunted “unwritten constitution”. It was always held together by the gilding and the cobwebs. Now even that has crumbled. The scandal of parliamentary sovereignty has been revealed: it is an absolutist doctrine. In the words of ­Kenyon Wright: “That which was always ­absurd in ­theory (parliamentary sovereignty) has ­become intolerable in practice.”

Fifth, there’s an increased awareness that while we do not (contrary to some) already have a Scottish Constitution, we do have certain foundational proto-constitutional documents – the Declaration of Arbroath and the 1689 and 1989 Claims of Right amongst them – upon which to build a distinctly Scottish, democratic, ­constitutional theory. This is grounded upon the people’s sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited to our needs.

What then, of the failings? The obvious one is that we are no further forward, no closer to independence, now than we were in 2014. ­Despite Brexit, despite Boris, despite a steady if slow rise in support for independence, there is no greater clarity on how to get there. We now face a much more hostile British policy, which has shifted from Scottish Unionism to British nationalism.

In that context, little thought has been ­given to what intermediate positions ­between ­devolution and independence there might ­possibly be. Imagine if Scotland had the ­autonomy of Gibraltar or Jersey. Is that better than independence? No. Is it better than what we have? Very much so.

This requires intelligent Scottish involvement in a UK-wide constitutional conversation, both to secure recognition of Scotland’s right to ­independence and to maximise autonomy short of full independence.

This is difficult because of the profound ­silence (for now) on the English side, and the unwillingness of British authorities to engage in that discussion. That might change. We must continue to work, as my mother always says, “all ends into the middle”.

Thank you to all who have read this column.