ANTI-INDEPENDENCE commentators have dismissed the Scottish Government’s Building A New Scotland series of policy papers as pie-in-the-sky.

“Never mind all that, ­focus on the ferries” is their only response. That might be a good attack line for the myopic and stupid, who can see no further than the ground in front of their own feet.

For the more canny and farsighted, however, these papers are a fine achievement. Far from being wishful thinking, this series is a necessary foundation for the future. Each one builds upon those that have gone before, forming, block by block, a comprehensive plan for statehood.

As they used to say when I was in the Navy, “Planning and preparation prevent piss-poor performance”. We do not want to win a vote on independence, however that vote might come, and then rush about like decapitated poultry trying to figure out what to do next. This is one of the ways Scottish independence is very ­different from Brexit. We want people to know precisely what they are voting for. We want the world to know what an independent Scotland would be: a good democracy, a good ally, a good neighbour.

The Building A New Scotland series offers certainty, reassurance and clarity. At a time when many are criticising the SNP for letting independence go off the boil, these papers show that the hard work of laying policy foundations is continuing – and, indeed, is being accelerated.

The constitution paper recognises that an ­independent Scotland will need a ­modern, ­democratic constitution. It commits to a ­two-stage process. The first step is to adopt a ­robust and sufficient, but not very radical, ­interim constitution, to be agreed in advance, which will get us through the transition to ­independence. The second step is to establish an inclusive process of constitution-building to develop a permanent constitution, which would be put to the people in a referendum. That is a practical and sensible course of action.

The citizenship paper sets out an inclusive, welcoming, outward-looking approach to ­Scottish citizenship.

The question of how to get the mandate for ­independence, of course, still remains. But knowing the destination, and being united around that destination, is half the journey. It is the difference between milling around ­uselessly, and preparing to march.

The UK Supreme Court’s decision that the Scottish Parliament does not have the authority under current law to hold a referendum (a decision which was as predictable as it is difficult to justify) does not mean that no referendum can be held. There are still ways to get a referendum by Section 30 order. It might be the SNP’s price of a confidence and supply arrangement with Labour after the next Westminster election. It is not impossible to imagine situations in which the UK Government might even insist upon a referendum, if the Scottish Government uses an election victory by pro-independence parties in the Westminster election as a trigger to become independent without one.

One crucial thing, though, has changed since 2014. The British imperial state was then ­willing to treat Scotland like most of its ­colonies: a country that had the right to a peaceful and democratic path to independence if and when it wanted it. Now that state, in its dying dotage, has reverted to its youthful arrogance: it intends to hold Scotland like it held the 13 American Colonies. We know how that ended.

It is said that: “Those who make ­peaceful change impossible make violent change ­inevitable.” To double-down on British ­nationalism, to deny Scottish claims, to attempt to roll-back ­devolution, is a terrible failure of statecraft. With a peaceful and democratic route to independence, England would have had a friendly and cooperative neighbour. The more they ignore the Claim of Right and deny ­Scotland’s democratic right to become ­independent, the more they build up a store of animosity. It is extreme foolishness.

It is not, however, unexpected. While the ­Scottish Government has been working hard ­setting out the plans for statehood, the ­opposition parties have been slack in every action except naysaying. In the previous ­generation, there was at least some constitutional thought going on amongst the LibDems and Scottish Labour. That has dried up since the Smith Commission. There are options and models out there, which could command broad support, but no credible, attractive, positive, alternative to independence has been offered.

There is no interest in these things from the Unionist parties. Gordon Brown’s proposals are thin gruel, and Keir Starmer shows little ­commitment to them. The LibDems used to ­believe in “federalism”, but they have shown no motion towards that objective.

So now it comes down to a clear choice: a well-organised, carefully planned, transition to Scottish independence, or unmitigated British nationalism, the erosion of devolution, and a ­return, in effect, to London rule. That’s what we have to vote on.