Here's why we need to stop allowing Unionists to frame the argument

Nerves would undoubtedly get the better of me. I’d stumble over my words. I’d get into an argument with somebody in the audience. I’d almost definitely swear.

But in the dream I was slick and polished. I had a pen that I held delicately and deliberately, in the way government ministers do.

I was visibly older, with a streak of grey running through the front of my hair like a badger’s.

Despite this dream being set some way in the future, we were discussing the prospect of indyref2. That topic is the only one I remember from the dream show but no doubt we would have gone on to discuss widespread drought, famine and nuclear apocalypse if I hadn’t woken up.

The only other panellist I can recall being there was Ruth Davidson. Annoyingly, she hadn’t aged at all. Maybe the House of Lords has a cryogenic chamber.

READ MORE: Just one per cent of Levelling Up staff are based in Scotland

Anyway, we were discussing indyref2 and despite the time that had passed and the fact that this scene was straight out of my imagination and could have involved some new, unexpected take on the debate, it followed exactly the same format as the last eight years.

Davidson tried to interrupt me and I said: “Hold on a wee second, Ruth,” and launched into what can only be described as a perfectly pitched evisceration of the strawman nonsense that surrounds the constitutional question.

The audience went wild. It was surely destined to become one of those viral clips that people retweet with clapping emojis. Like I say, it would never happen in real life.

Dream analysts wouldn’t have to delve too deep to uncover the meaning behind it. A healthy dose of performance anxiety and a deep frustration that we’re still debating the merits of asking a question, rather than the detail of the question itself, is likely to blame.

Indyref2 is back in the headlines (not that it ever really went away) as the Scottish and UK Governments gear up for a Supreme Court battle in early October.

UK law officers say the Scottish Parliament “plainly” does not have the power to set up an independence referendum. In a submission to the court last week, the UK Government argued that a referendum is “not designed to be an exercise in mere abstract opinion polling at considerable public expense”.

In the run-up to the court showdown, we can expect to hear a re-run of all the same arguments against indyref2 that have been trotted out in recent years.

Every Unionist politician who argues against Scotland’s right to choose its own future uses a different formulation of words, but they all boil down to the same two main points.

Firstly, that the Scottish Parliament doesn’t have the power to hold a referendum (the ha, ha, ha is implied).

Next, the most-used line of them all. That Scotland has “already decided” and the 2014 poll was meant to be a “once-in-a-generation’’ occurrence.

Soon, a commentator who is less of a scaredy cat than me will have this point put to them live on TV and viewers will watch them erupt in an explosion of fury and frustration at what a pathetic argument it is.

If a First Minister doesn’t have the power to implement a referendum then the UK Government definitely doesn’t have the power to rule one out for any period of time either.

Unionists know this. They know that “once in a generation” was not a literal or legally-binding statement.

READ MORE: Kirsten Oswald slates latest attack on devolved nations by Liz Truss

It was a way of saying “we might not get this chance again”. And for good reason. For as much as the circumstances of the time – with the SNP winning a shock majority in a parliamentary system designed to prevent it – was politically compelling, Yes polling in the low to mid-30s was even more so.

The No side was sure it was going to win. And it was right. But that looks much less certain now, as the country is divided 50-50 on independence before the formal campaign has even begun.

Unionists claim they want to “move on” from the constitutional question but are happy for us to remain stuck in this wearying debate about whether we should even be allowed to ask the question.

The alternative is a vibrant, informed debate about Scotland’s future. Which is why Unionists much prefer Groundhog Day.

In the months ahead, let’s skip the daft, distracting conversations about what constitutes a generation and whether a party that won the last election has the right to implement its manifesto.

Instead, let’s talk about whether the UK is a voluntary union of four equal nations. If it is, then what’s the mechanism for leaving?

For too long, indyref2 has been framed by Unionist arguments.

In the months ahead, that’s got to change.