MUCH as I admire Jeremy Corbyn and was mesmerised by the way he came from nowhere on June 8 to shake the British establishment to its foundations, I can’t help but wonder what might have happened had he managed to form a government.

Last week in parliament we got just a hint of the problems he would have faced from day one. Despite his soaring prestige after his sensational advance in the general election no fewer than 50 of his backbenchers defied his authority to stage a Westminster revolt by voting against withdrawal from the single market.

Jeremy, the Labour rebel par excellence can hardly complain. By most estimates, he has defied the Labour whip more than 500 times during his parliamentary career — and that’s something he’ll never be allowed to forget by his Blairite rivals. I suspect that had Jeremy reached Number 10, he would already be under siege from all sides.

Trying to run a capitalist economy while tip-toeing through the Brexit minefield with the whole British establishment ranged against him and most of his own backbenchers seizing every opportunity to undermine him would have been a rather more difficult gig than performing before an adulatory crowd at Glastonbury.

Even Clement Attlee only lasted six years, while Harold Wilson, after surging to power in 1974 promising to carry out a “fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power to working people and their families”, was dead in the water just two years later. His successor Jim Callaghan lost his slim majority, and was forced to borrow billions from the IMF in exchange for the drastic spending cuts that led to the Winter of Discontent and the victory of Thatcher in 1979.

I suspect that far from killing independence stone dead, a Corbyn government in Westminster would have accelerated the demise of the UK state.

But what about Brexit and the single market? Let’s be clear on one point. The real agenda underlying the debate over membership of the single market is immigration. The Tories and the current Labour leadership both understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it. The UK cannot remain part of the single market without guaranteeing the free movement of people.

In one sense, Corbyn’s stance is principled. Brexit was all about immigration. Most people who voted Leave did so because they want to stop, or at least limit, the numbers of EU immigrants into the UK.

I respect the views of those who oppose the EU from the left. They are right, to an extent, when they describe it as big business club, or when they highlight the lack of democratic accountability over Brussels. But they were the few, not the many. The many were whipped up by the right-wing media, the Tories and Ukip into a frenzy of xenophobia.

But that’s democracy — and in England and Wales the majority voted to leave the EU, and abandon the free movement of people and the single market. So, whatever Corbyn’s own personal views, he has democratic legitimacy on his side. And of course, it won’t do his electoral prospects any harm either in the neglected post-industrial zones of northern England.

Where it all becomes complicated — indeed where everything becomes complicated — is the application of democracy within a multinational state. Scotland and Northern Ireland did not want an EU referendum in the first place. It was imposed upon us against our will. And then we voted decisively — in Scotland by a resounding 62 per cent to 38 per cent — to remain. A clear Brexit that involves leaving the single market and ending the free movement of people may have a democratic mandate in England and Wales — but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

AND that goes to the heart of the principle of the right to self-determination. Only a subordinate, dependent nation is denied the right to shape its own relations with the outside world. Which is why it’s perfectly reasonable that Nicola Sturgeon should link a future referendum to Brexit.

Of course, the case for independence is broader — and as far as I know, no-one has ever tried to argue otherwise. But the moral legitimacy of holding another referendum derives from this fundamental change that has occurred since 2014, and which has at least the potential to magnify austerity multiple times over, as well as seriously disrupt the lives of 200,000 EU citizens who have chosen to make their homes and their lives in Scotland.

The timetable for the next referendum means that even a Yes vote will not stop Scotland from leaving the European Union. I hope that’s temporary because I fear that being part of the single market without being involved in the European Union denies us the opportunity to challenge the institutions of Brussels and Strasbourg. It means being forced to accepting that the rules handed down from above without having any input into the decision-making process.

As a small, progressive independent nation state Scotland will need strong international links. There are dozens of left wing parties represented in the European Parliament — and, as is traditional on the left, there are rival left wing continent-wide blocs in Strasbourg, including the European United Left–Nordic Green Left and the Party of the European Left.

All of them are critical of the European Union as it stands — they are anti-austerity and deregulation. But few argue for withdrawal because they understand that in today’s interconnected world, radical change needs to be fought for at continental level as well as national level. They work together to radically democratise the institutions of the EU and campaign together for a social Europe that stands for demilitarisation, social and economic justice, gender equality, environmental protection and solidarity with those resisting oppression across the world.

That’s the kind of progressive links I believe an independent Scotland should be forging — not least because when we do take full power into our own hands, we will need to build a strong network of international support.