I have spent the last month in a different political world from the one I am used to. As Scotland prepares for its historic referendum next year on independence, comment pages in the Scottish newspapers are crammed with columns relating to the referendum. Each day there are front-page news stories on the latest twists and turns. Bump into any politician in Scotland, political adviser or pollster, and the talk turns intensely to the battle ahead.
Yet the battle is already won. In its political culture and its powers to define what form that culture takes, Scotland is already so incomparably different from England that a form of separation is taking place in front of our eyes. Even in the absurdly artificial environment of the Edinburgh festival it is impossible to avoid the sense that Scotland and England are separating even if, as the pollsters here predict, there is no formal divorce next year.
The referendum plays an ambiguous role in the unstoppable sequence. Without doubt, insular, parochial England should pay more attention to a referendum that is definitely taking place instead of obsessing about one on Europe that might never be held. And yet, inadvertently, the indifference is not entirely misplaced. Of course, if Scotland were to vote for independence there would be a tumultuous constitutional crisis months before a general election – but even if there were to be such a dramatic outcome, the trauma would be felt more at Westminster. Scotland has already made its moves and will continue to do so.
There have been three staging posts that will, I suspect, prove to be more significant than next year's referendum. The first was the establishment of the Scottish parliament after the 1997 election. At the time it seemed to be an act of New Labour expedient caution. Instead, the limited, constrained devolved powers have acquired much greater weight because of the second staging post, the accidental election of a radical rightwing coalition at Westminster.
The more influential ministers in the coalition ache above all to radically challenge the role of the state, to achieve the reverse of the 1945 Labour government. Remarkably, given that they rule in a hung parliament, they have found the space to pursue their radical ambitions. Few in England voted for a revolutionary overhaul of the NHS, the near privatisation of universities, a further decline in the power of local government, a framework for education that paves the way for a return to selection and the introduction of profit-making schools, but that is what they are getting. In their fervent disdain for the state as a mediating agency, ministers focus with special energetic intensity on areas over which they happen to have no powers in Scotland.
As a result Scotland becomes more markedly different than ever. In Scotland the NHS is spared the haphazard revolution in England. The education secretary, Michael Gove, is powerless to impose his resolute will on schools in Scotland and the same applies to his other more evangelical colleagues moving England rightwards. Without doing very much Scotland becomes more different because of what is happening in England. The limited powers handed over to the Scottish parliament are precisely the ones that partly protect it from the ideological mission of the Westminster government. The cautiously incremental New Labour settlement becomes the basis of historic distinctiveness.
The distinctiveness will deepen whatever happens in the referendum. The third significant staging post is the declaration from the three main party leaders that they support giving more powers to Scotland, so called devo-max. Admittedly the precise nature of this support is still vague, but the first minister, Alex Salmond, will be in a strong position to negotiate a further substantial transfer of powers even if he loses the referendum. It will not be in the interests of the Westminster leaders to resist. Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have seats to retain or gain in Scotland at the 2015 general election. Cameron must be amenable if he wants the virtually nonexistent Conservative party in Scotland to breathe into any life at all. Vital elections will then be held for the Scottish parliament in 2016 when the SNP will almost certainly continue to be a dominant force.
Many who will oppose independence next year support devo-max and will not forgive Westminster if it does not deliver. If there is only a puny devo-max deal after a defeat for independence, there will soon be calls in Scotland for another referendum. Referendums never resolve much: the losing side starts calling for another one. But it is possible that the pause will be a little longer if and when the Scottish parliament acquires more powers and Scotland becomes even more different than it is already.
I am a participant in this year's Edinburgh festival, and in my attempt to bring political journalism to the stage I already feel the need to address two entirely different audiences. At the beginning of each performance I ask how many in my bulging tent are from Scotland and how many from England. I change the contents on the spot according to the proportion from each country. Bringing journalism to the stage already smashes through the boundaries of several genres, but the most sensitive task is navigating between the politics of Scotland and England, the equivalent almost of performing in front of an unlikely audience of Americans and Swedes. It makes playing for laughs an even more sensitive task, and sometimes a dangerous one. The referendum has not even been held yet.
The campaign for independence is currently seeking to convey an awkward message. In an attempt to reassure the many undecided voters, its current broad theme is that the referendum is a moment of epic significance, but do not worry, nothing much will change if they vote for independence. Any campaign with a contradictory message is in some difficulty. And yet although the message from advocates of independence is too complex to resonate in what will become a noisy contest, it speaks to a broader truth. The referendum is historic and yet, in Scotland at least, change will be limited because so much is changing anyway.
Soon England will wake up to the fact that a referendum is taking place of historic note. After that it needs to wake up to the fact that, irrespective of a single campaign next year, Scotland is going its own way, a course of travel triggered in 1997 and with some distance to go.
Steve Richards is a political columnist and broadcaster.