NO one process of national independence is exactly like another, just as no nation’s history, circumstances and structures are precisely like another. But things can be learnt from other places and other times.

Scotland should presently be doing just that.

That thought occurred to me this week, not just because I have had some time to think and read about the process of independence elsewhere, but also, because we must all be aware that if the word “prorogation” is now in the vocabulary of Boris Johnson, then perhaps he and his team will have been wondering whether it could be applied as much to the pesky Scottish Parliament as to the potentially obstructive Westminster one.

With regard to independence I am indebted to my friend Chris Harvie for his advice to look at the Finnish experience, a century after it (in population the same size as Scotland) gained its own place in the world and days after they took on the presidency of the EU.

READ MORE: Investigation: 'Neverendum' news story busted by experts

But I have also been reading the Ukrainian American historian Serhii Plokhii’s award-winning 2014 book The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union (having just finished his definitive and chilling study of the Chernobyl tragedy).

I am not for a minute suggesting that the present UK is like either Tsarist Russia or the former Soviet Union but both Finland’s process of independence and the break up of the USSR have a common underlying theme – the self-defeating mishandling of the end game by the dominating power.

In Finland there was a long history of home rule underpinned by a strong cultural movement. Ultimately the key factor that moved the country to independence was the collapse of Russia in the First World War and the turmoil which led to the triumph of the Bolsheviks.

But running before and then beneath this, as a current which motivated, accelerated and strengthened the national movement and national feeling, were repeated moves by Russia to limit the power of the Finnish parliament and to increase “Russification” .

As a policy it was totally counterproductive.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson won't meet Nicola Sturgeon at Bute House on first trip to Scotland as PM

Seventy years later the Soviet Union made the same mistake, initially in dealing with the Baltic States. In that case attempts to reverse the growing demand for independence sometimes went as far as ill-fated military intervention.

In dealing with the other republics that made up the old union of socialist states there was also a similar preference for diktat rather than discussion.

Once again it failed.

The two candidates for the Tory leadership have already expressed intentions towards devolution that are unacceptable.

They want to allow UK departments to spend in devolved areas without consultation, thus deliberately skewing and derailing policies set by the devolved administrations. They demand a right to scrutinise devolved expenditure and they want to bring Scottish and Welsh Tories into the negotiations on Brexit whilst excluding the legitimate elected devolved governments.

READ MORE: Nick Clegg says Brexit means Union's break-up 'more likely than not'

At the same time they say they intend to spend much more money on promoting the UK and the Union (though really just themselves) and increase their own visibility in places such as the heart of Edinburgh where a new office block full of UK civil servants is just opening.

All this has already upset many people but I know some have a further worry that the current brazen UK Government hostility towards the Scottish Government and Parliament, aided and abetted by the 13 Scottish Tory MPs, could go even further.

There is no doubt in my mind that any such actions would produce a severe backlash in Scotland and not just from those who presently support independence. At the very least devolution is, as Donald Dewar called it, the settled will of the vast majority of citizens in Scotland and serious attempts by any Westminster government to reverse or even remove it would be massively resented and democratically resisted.

But in addition, all the precedent shows that in taking such actions the UK would be embracing the certainty of failure.

I would rather we had a civilised and constructive set of negotiations that took us to our independent standing in Europe, recognizing that we will need a positive relationship with the rest of the UK going forward.

We can, and should, aspire in every action to be good, equal neighbours.

But if any headstrong Tory – like a new prime minister – wants. out of arrogance, or ignorance or malice to do it another way then there will be an inevitable outcome, which will be the exact opposite of what he intended.