In a democracy, there has to be a route by which the most fundamental changes can be achieved if there is majority support for them, no matter how annoying or upsetting the process may be for the people who don't want those changes to happen

It's a reminder of just how comprehensively Somerset Stew has moved over to the other side that right in the middle of a Holyrood election campaign, he has approvingly tweeted an article from the poet and former Yes supporter Jenny Lindsay saying she is now agnostic about independence and would strongly oppose another referendum, because it would be "divisive".  I may be totally misremembering this, but I think I recall very briefly meeting Jenny Lindsay during the 2014 referendum campaign - I think she may have been manning the doors for John "The Gardener" McTernan's bizarre talk during "Yestival".  I knew that she had become disillusioned with the Scottish Government due to her gender critical views, but this is the first time I've become aware that she has actually ceased to be a Yesser as a result.  It seems that the trans issue has acted as a 'gateway drug' for her towards unionism (or soft unionism), which a cynic might say is what Stew was hoping would happen to people all along and is exactly why he started banging on about the issue in the first place.

To answer a question that sometimes comes up when I make the 'gateway drug' point - no, that categorically does not mean I regret commissioning a poll about gender self-ID several years ago.  I did that at a point when the Scottish Government were full-bloodedly trying to push self-ID through, and when we had no idea that the UK Government were even considering using their imperial veto to get us all off the hook.  My view was and remains that the Scottish Government desperately needed, in their own best interests, to be confronted with evidence of just how far they had drifted apart from public opinion, because pushing ahead recklessly could have caused untold damage to the independence cause.  But once the course correction was achieved, as it eventually was (albeit by unexpected means) what the critical friend to the Scottish Government should do at that point is take yes for an answer.  If you instead do what Stew has done and ramp up your fixation with the issue to the point that you're actually trying to use it to destroy the SNP and the independence cause, then you were never a friend in the first place.

With Jenny Lindsay, it's a different story, she's clearly sincere in what she says, even though I totally disagree with her.  Where I think she really doesn't have a leg to stand on is her notion that holding another referendum would be some sort of crime against humanity because it would terribly upset people who don't want independence to happen.  In a democracy, there has to be a path by which even the most fundamental changes can be achieved if there is a majority in favour of them, even if some people would be annoyed or upset by them.  The assisted dying vote in the Scottish Parliament last month was genuinely frightening and traumatic for many disabled people because it looked with a few hours to go as if the legislation might well pass.  I was personally relieved that it didn't pass, but I do respect the fact that it was absolutely right and proper that the vote was held, and that it will be similarly right and proper that other such votes will undoubtedly be held in the future, in spite of the stress and anguish it caused.  Exactly the same democratic principle applies to independence.  Even "once in a generation" has ceased to be an alibi, because by 2028 - when John Swinney wants to hold the referendum - a generation will have passed since 2014.  Alex Salmond was always explicit about what he meant by a political generation, and the example he usually gave was the period of time between the 1979 and 1997 devolution referendums.

If unionists feel there is something uniquely traumatic about fundamental change occurring via a referendum process, the onus is on them to accept that it can instead happen by a non-referendum democratic process.  But usually the idea of achieving independence in some other way makes them even more homicidal.  The only other option I can see for them if they want the issue to go away would be to engage in good faith with independence supporters in seeking a 'Grand Compromise' that both sides could live with, and would be enough for the bulk of the independence movement to agree to stop pressing for a referendum for a prolonged period of time, say for fifteen years.  But that compromise would probably look very much like genuine Devo Max - and we all know the fury with which unionists tend to react to that idea.  The reality is they don't want a coming together, they don't want an end to division.  That path is open to them, but they don't intend to take it.  All they want to do is totally thwart and destroy the legitimate political aspirations of their adversaries - who now represent more than 50% of the Scottish population.

So if you want to piously preach about "divisiveness", get back to us when you've had a change of heart and are willing to start listening, engaging, and compromising.  We're not exactly holding our breath on that one.

*  *  *

My latest constituency profile for The National is Renfrewshire North & Cardonald.