Here's a good, unscientific bet:
if Scottish Labour had been inundated with membership applications after the referendum, we would have heard all about it. If the party had come close to matching the 82,000 of the SNP, predictions of a triumph for Ed Miliband next May would have come thick and fast.
Instead, Labour in Scotland is enduring another of its little local difficulties. With Johann Lamont's sudden if unsurprising resignation, the party must look for a seventh leader in the space of just 15 years. Its matchless reputation for incessant internecine warfare has meanwhile been maintained.
Quitting, a bitter Lamont describes an organisation regarded as a "branch office" by high-handed London colleagues, its leader marginalised when not ignored. Jack McConnell, one of her numerous predecessors, has described her treatment as "outrageous". Lamont's devastating central point is that those around Miliband neither understand nor care about devolution. For a self-styled "People's Party", it's not a pretty picture.
As to actual people, silence reigns. Labour, still obdurately identifying itself as "Scotland's largest political party", doesn't give out membership numbers.
Some truths can no longer be ignored. One, already a cliche less than six weeks after Scotland's vote, is that No's victory was Labour's defeat. First and foremost, Glasgow and other former heartlands chose independence. According to one poll, meanwhile, 37% of those who previously voted Labour voted Yes. In surveys of voting intention since, the party has been clobbered.
You could, if loyal to Labour and daft, be sanguine. You could tell yourself a new leader means a new start. You could say that popularity and members come and go, that Holyrood elections and Westminster elections are different things. Perhaps you might convince yourself the lost voters will return when another Tory government threatens. When has that one ever failed?
If the party was a person, we would be talking about personality disorders. A failure to address reality would be a clue. The Labour that took a hiding in the last Scottish elections conducted the referendum campaign as though oblivious to a changed mood, as though incapable of believing "lifelong supporters" could desert, as though a pact with Tories and bankers would produce no anger. Lamont, for one, has been left with no choice but to face the consequences.
Yet some of her former adherents still attempt to mock those who voted Yes. Those voters are instructed to "move on". They are told they were deluded or deceived. In its infinite stupidity, the party has refused to ask the obvious question: how could anyone, treated in that fashion, return quietly to voting in the old way?
The coalition on which Labour was founded did not include Tories or big business. The party was created by trades unionists. Modernisers might disdain the fact, but "the link" is old and intimate. It's what gives the party its very name, never mind its reason to exist. What's more, as often as not, those millions who pay their union subs still foot Labour's bills.
Miliband does not wish to be depicted as "the prisoner of the unions". The unions, meanwhile, know that one old truth is these days a simple fact of life. For employees still in union membership, the idea that Labour is their only choice is a hoary joke. Why should a Green voter see money going to support Miliband? Why should an angry Yes voter, recalling Scottish Labour's behaviour, give a penny to keep it in the game?
Last year, Miliband argued that the connection between political funds and Labour Party affiliation fees for individuals need no longer be automatic. He had his own ambitions for a "mass party" and useful headlines in mind. Scottish trades unionists who voted Yes have other aims in view.
Among these people there has been a groundswell since the referendum. Given the behaviour of Labour and certain big unions in Better Together, real anger has mounted and a political levy boycott has been gathering pace. The unions that endorsed the No campaign with little thought and precious little consultation are paying the price. In hard cash.
Like Scottish Labour, they have weakened themselves, perhaps irreparably, by their choice of causes and friends. Westminster and Miliband's fate have mattered more than respect for members. There might be nothing new about the failure of unions to represent diverse views. There is something new going on, however, when people decide that the movement itself is tainted by association. Lamont has all but admitted as much.
Labour and friends in the GMB, Usdaw, CWU and others knew - or should have - the referendum was liable to cause them immense damage, yet they pressed on regardless.
Who will be won back to Labour next May? How fertile is Scottish ground now for a trade union movement that has problems enough? The sanguine and stupid, the paid operators and the party hacks, will go on holding out their crumbs of hope to diminishing audiences of the faithful. But a historic unravelling is taking place. The second casualty, after truth, is the labour movement.
With Lamont's departure, another truth will need to be addressed: old things in Scotland are being destroyed before the new has been properly born. But we'll cope.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article