TONY Blair, at the outset of the Scottish Parliament, famously described its powers as equal to that of a “Parish Council”. Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court confirmed that the 1998 Scotland Act indeed bequeathed parish council powers on Scotland’s future to the Scottish Parliament – except for the massive opportunities Scottish elections afford to ask the people about independence.

It is also worth remembering that Scotland joining the 1707 Union of the Parliaments obviously long predates the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the 1998 Act.

The Supreme Court has spoken and certainly closed one door, but it has opened many, many more doors as a result. Initially, we were only looking for a one-off referendum, but now any election going forward can be used as an election for independence. We may yet be thankful for the Supreme Court’s manner of judgment.

The Law Lords’ ruling is very interesting, particularly paragraphs 74-81. Essentially, the Law Lords argue that a referendum would have “no immediate legal consequences”, but it would have “practical” effects and it would “possess the authority” in a “political culture founded upon democracy”. Basically, the ballot box is the strongest authority, and its choices affect much else.

READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: The monarchy question must be answered after indy

In fact, even the Supreme Court, is a product of the ballot box, having been created by the UK Government in 2009 – and its judges, like Lord Reed, were appointed on the recommendation of the UK Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor. Essentially, the UK Government-created Supreme Court passed judgment on a UK Government-created Scotland Act.

In other words, a referendum, although without legal powers itself, would create pressure on the UK Government to amend the constitution. Essentially, what they are pointing out is a very practical reality that in a democratic culture, while the constitution might be reserved, the rule of the people and democracy would trump the law. Law would have to catch up, forcing Westminster to legally recognise the democratic reality from a referendum inspired at Holyrood. Trying to resist that reality would look very awkward in a background where many a despot across the world uses their own legal system to quell the will of the people. Fortunately, our democratic culture in this part of Europe would prevent that.

The ruling made clear that the Scottish Parliament, in the UK Union cannot hold a referendum to even request action from the UK Government, in accordance with the will of the people in Scotland.

But there is always a weakness in any Colditz constitution. The Achilles heel for a system that would happily keep Scotland hostage in the UK Union actually lies in the apparatus to form a Scottish Parliament – it has elections every five years at least. Elections give opportunities for the people to speak and vote freely on political matters, unconstrained by law or courts.

The Supreme Court helpfully recognised the supremacy of the ballot box, which was why the ballot box was not allowed to be used in a referendum to give views on a reserved matter. However, where free and fair elections occur, any manifesto can be put in front of the people with any prospectus.

Therefore, an election can take the UK Government and Parliament to a point of practical pressure and “authority”, a point the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 1998 Act forbade. Namely, the people can answer the question on independence at the same ballot boxes at an election and obviously carry the “practical” effects that would “possess the authority” in a “political culture founded upon democracy”.

Unless people would want to be Trump-style ballot box deniers or ape Putin or Lukashenko, this ballot box authority would be respected. Even a number of Conservative MPs have told me so, essentially: “If the Scottish people vote for independence, you really have to accept that”. I applaud this attitude from sensible politicians, whom I do disagree with politically, but nevertheless respect the will of the people.

Going forward, the option Scotland is left with is to use an election as a democratic event.

We should note that there are many opportunities, not just for one election, but any party can come along with a manifesto and say “we want independence at this election” – if the people vote for it then that will carry “authority”. These are the many doors that can be opened in the future by the Scottish people as a result of the closing of the referendum door.

In the words of one of my colleagues, nothing says you are serious about independence like collapsing your devolved government and preventing the appointment, by the Parliament, of a first minister for four weeks then having a seven to eight week election campaign.

We could, of course, wait for a Westminster election, but we don’t control the timing or the media narrative, and we probably wouldn’t have our party leader involved in the leaders’ debates – and making a UK election about independence in the media might be very difficult. If we feel we can win independence at a Westminster election, we are definitely going to win it at a Holyrood election.

So, we either call a Holyrood election with a more inclusive franchise, have an attempt at a Westminster election, or give it an attempt again at the Holyrood election. These are opportunities that Scotland now has as a result of the judgment from the Supreme Court blocking a referendum under the 1998 Scotland Act not because of its legal effects, but because of the moral authority it would carry. Not just in Scotland or the UK, but also internationally.

Everyone realises the fact that in democratic cultures, the will of the people is carried, and Scotland – a nation – has its own devolved parliament which clearly defines where and what Scotland is. Scotland of course predates the 1998 Act, it does not need the Act to go towards independence, it is a nation in a Union.

People who recognise the rights of Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark Ukraine, Ireland or even Taiwan to independence must extend the same courtesy to Scotland.

We want to leave on good terms, improve our society and move away from the economic extremities of the UK Government, which is again doing Austerity 2.0. The first round of austerity led to 300,000 excess deaths across the UK, probably 30,000 within Scotland. We can do better, but we cannot do better unless we get powers, and that is why the election route to independence will be used in the near future – and sooner or later it will deliver independence.

The flip side is that those who oppose independence can, of course, use elections after independence to return to the Union if they so choose, but we see from countries who have gone independent that this just about never happens. When countries get their independence and govern themselves better, they are not going to go back to a situation where they get governments they do not vote for by virtue of their neighbour’s choices.