AS the five judges of the UK Supreme Court look forward to months of poring over submissions from both sides of the independence wrangle between the UK and Scottish governments, much of the media seems under the impression that the war has already been won.

Many political commentators seem convinced that MSPs would be acting outwith their powers by staging a second independence referendum without a Section 30 agreement passed by Westminster. They swallow the argument that since the constitution – and therefore the future of the Union – remains a matter reserved to the UK Parliament, Holyrood cannot act on the matter.

I’m no lawyer, so I am happy to leave the more detailed investigation of the legal arguments to colleagues with more expertise in that area, such as the esteemed Andrew Tickell, whose analysis is featured on these pages.

I do know, however, that the behaviour of the current UK Government merits more examination than much of the media has hitherto devoted to it and that there are serious reasons why it is not just those already convinced of the merits of independence who should be rooting for the Scottish Government to come out on top of this argument.

READ MORE: UK media takes muted approach to historic Supreme Court indyref case

Devolution or no devolution, it has not until very recently been suggested by politicians at Westminster that the Union can only be dissolved with their say-so.

Indeed, there has been general historic support for a variety of different mechanisms by which Scotland could legitimately call the whole thing off.

Even Margaret Thatcher, a prime minister few would consider to be Scotland’s best friend, had a very clear view of what would constitute a mandate for independence. In her view, that would have been the return of a majority of independence-supporting MPs, which in her day would have meant a majority of SNP MPs.

She expressed this view, of course, before the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, when the only democratic vote on such a matter would have been a Westminster General Election.

But even after devolution, Thatcher’s view still had significant support. Even the politician regarded as being its architect believed there were ways in which Scotland could decide its constitutional future. In a debate on the Scotland Act which brought in devolution, then Scottish secretary Donald Dewar said if the SNP’s argument was able to “carry the people of Scotland”, it could advance their cause.

He said: “If I did try to build such barriers [to stop Scotland having a choice], they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want.”

Dewar went on later to clarify his feelings. While stating that the power over the constitution was indeed reserved to Westminster, he stressed that did not trump the power of the Scottish people to enact change.

Of course, those comments were made at a time when there was little or no chance of the majority of Scots backing independence, even when the SNP’s fortunes improved in the 1970s with the slogan: “It’s Scotland’s oil”. When the party won their first majority government in Scotland in 2011, support for independence itself was under 30%.

When David Cameron agreed to give the 2014 independence referendum a legal status with a Section 30 order, he undoubtedly thought a No victory was a certainty, but in truth, I don’t believe that was the only reason he approved it. There was no expectation he would – or could – deny it after such a spectacular SNP victory. Nor was he given much acclaim for supporting a democratic process. No one expected him to do otherwise. There was a clear democratic case for holding the referendum. Had he refused to do so, there would have been an outcry.

The argument for independence is far stronger today than it was in 2014. Brexit is pretty much the very definition of a “material change in circumstance” since that first vote. The cost of leaving Europe has been incalculable. The respective governments of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss not only ignore the Scottish Government – they actively disrespect it and seize every opportunity to show that disrespect.

Every economic argument put forward to justify the Union in 2014 has crumbled to dust in their hands. The markets are panicking; the pound’s value is tumbling; pensions are at risk as pension funds teeter on the brink of collapse; the cost of living has soared to eye-watering levels. Every threat to pour forth from the mouths of Project Fear’s key players has come true ... not because we left the Union, but because we stayed within it.

Westminster is left with just three arguments in their bid to keep the Union in place.

1. In 2014, the SNP had a majority government. They do not today

 

This is a nonsensical argument. While it is true the SNP did not win a majority government at the last Scottish election – they missed by just one seat – their arrangement with the Greens means there is a pro-independence majority government. The position is exactly the same as it was in 2014.

2. Westminster politicians endlessly reference Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon’s “promise” that indyref1 was a “once in a generation” event

 

This second argument is no stronger than the first. The “once in a generation” statement wasn’t a promise. It was a statement of what was assumed to be fact. No one could have foreseen the full extent of Better Together’s broken promises. When the scale of their duplicity became apparent, it was the Scottish Government’s duty to demand a new vote.

3. “Now is not the time”

 

For the Union’s supporters, there will never be a right time. There will always be a crisis that takes precedence, be it on health grounds or financial. They no longer even pretend to have any real arguments about the timing of indyref2. They just don’t want it. Ever. And they believe that what they say goes.

It’s not new that the Conservative Party does not believe in independence. What IS new is that they have now ditched their support for democracy. Since Theresa May’s ascendance, they have turned their back on the principle of Scotland’s right to choose its own future – a principle embraced by David Cameron and even Margaret Thatcher and Tory prime ministers before them.

READ MORE: 'Do the right thing for once': Douglas Ross told to reject benefits cuts

They have also ditched the need for convincing and articulate arguments for recognising the individual nationhood of Scotland – and Wales for that matter – and for any semblance of a just power-sharing agreement as envisaged by Donald Dewar and others whose efforts delivered the birth of devolution. All these principles were abandoned and forgotten as the Tories realised they were unnecessary when they could push through anything they want by the sheer and brutal force of numbers.

We are now entering a dark period for British democracy when the elected government has carte blanche to do whatever it wants, from replacing the prime minister at will to ignoring all precedents set by its own party and refusing to allow one member of the Union any legal route to leave.

Even those Scottish politicians opposed to independence – and yes, I’m talking to you, Douglas Ross and Anas Sarwar – should surely support the principle of relying on reasoned debate to win their case instead of using a built-in majority south of the Border to quash any chance of Scotland having a say over its own future.

If instead they are quite happy to do as they are told by their London masters, they will surely find themselves disastrously out of step with the rest of the country and reap the inevitable catastrophe at the ballot box. If they refuse to stand up for democracy in Scotland, they will have to stand down, whether they want to or not.