If it had not been apparent before the referendum, it became all too obvious during the campaign that the Labour Party's utter contempt for the idea of independence, and for those who supported them, was blinding the party to any rational argument.
But, in truth, it was not only the idea of independence that Labour have never grasped. During the campaign Labour took to describing itself as the party of devolution when in fact they had never understood the Scottish desire for control over our own affairs and had never come to terms with the new political opportunities the Scottish Parliament offered.
It is this crucial failure of vision that is at the heart of the problems within the party which exploded into a full-blown civil war and led to the departure of its leader in Scotland, Johann Lamont, this weekend.
Of course, there is a bitter irony in Lamont now complaining that the party in London treated Scotland as nothing more than a ''branch office''. For isn't that a perfect metaphor for the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood, London and Scotland?
Our aspirations towards taking the important decisions which will shape our future all too often provoke baffled head-scratching in the corridors of power in the House of Commons.
Had the Labour Party been thinking clearly they would have asked themselves this question: why, if the prospect of independence held little appeal, did Better Together have to resort to ridiculous fear tactics - the threats to our economy, our pensions, our savings, our jobs, even our mobile-phone bills - to cow voters into submission?
Why, if independence represented the road to disaster, did the unionist parties have to tell us that oil was running out when in fact, as we now know, technology would extend its life and new oil fields would bring significant and longer-lasting benefits?
The truth is that the ability to shape our own future, to raise and spend our own money, to create a country more in tune with our political beliefs and social concerns, is an entirely natural and reasonable desire. So natural and reasonable, in fact, that those powers are exactly what Lamont wanted for the Labour Party in Scotland, but which were once again blocked by a London leadership more concerned with electoral advantage in the UK than with the prospects of disaster at the polling booths in Scotland.
Labour have never regarded Holyrood as anything but a secondary chamber which must always be subservient to Westminster. That much can be seen by the fact that most of the party's real talent has migrated to London whenever the opportunity beckoned.
Whether those decisions were taken out of a genuine desire to do what was best for Scotland and for the UK or were guided more by the egos of politicians eager to take their place on a "more important" stage is increasingly open to debate.
What cannot be argued is that it left Labour in Scotland far too weak to counter an energised and ascendant SNP. It is almost impossible now to believe that before the SNP's first Holyrood victory in 2007 it was described as a one-man band and a one-trick pony.
Look today at Scottish Labour as they search for a successor to the departed and bitter Lamont. It is almost certain to turn to its politicians at Westminster, so bereft of talent are its benches at Holyrood.
Former first minister Henry McLeish is right when he says in an interview with the Sunday Herald today that, in truth, it matters less who the party chooses to accept this poisoned chalice than what the party has to do to recognise and adapt to the new political landscape in Scotland today.
That landscape includes a large and engaged minority who still believe that independence offers the best hope for our country's future and who show little sign of giving up that dream because the referendum result did not go their way.
It also includes an unknown but certainly significant number of people who voted No because they were confident that the promised extensive new powers would become a reality.
It is tempting to write off the chances of those powers becoming a reality. After all, the omens are anything but good and David Cameron's insistence on attaching the issue to that of English votes on English laws must rank as one of the most deeply cynical political manoeuvres of recent times.
However, we must wait to see what the Smith Commission delivers and what Westminster's reactions to its recommendations will be.
But the Labour Party should know this: their standing in Scotland is at its lowest level in living memory and if they once again fail to recognise the political reality of a new, post-referendum Scotland they faces years, possibly decades, in the wilderness.
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