TO paraphrase an old song, where have all the federalists gone, long time passing? It’ll soon be the third anniversary of the so-called Vow, when leaders of the British parties came north to stem the Yes tide by promising untold powers to follow. A significant new constitutional settlement was implied and Gordon Brown even pledged it would be “as close to federalism as could be”.

Instead Englis votes for English laws (Evel) was imposed at Westminster and the additional powers from the Smith Commission begrudgingly devolved to Holyrood. As the battle of Brexit rages there’s now more a risk of current powers being removed, rather than new ones added. Close to federalism this is not.

I voted Yes but realise that many don’t want independence. Indeed, a few may have been persuaded to vote No as a consequence of the pledges made, though whether it affected the final result is debatable. Federalism was and remains, arguably, the majority position held in Scotland. That was the reason David Cameron refused a multi-option referendum at the outset, concerned lest it won. However, as defeat loomed, panic spurred him to allude to it.

I still prefer independence but recognise that federalism’s a more coherent structure than what we currently have. It’s a hotchpotch that lacks logic and stability even after several iterations. Some powers over income but few over wealth, responsibility for the economy but the absence of many significant levers to affect it, in charge of justice but not firearms or narcotics that constitute most serious crime and even a Culture Secretary without oversight of the media, the most important medium in the 21st century.

There are arguments against federalism, especially when it is asymmetric. That’s when it’s between one large and one small state, and where it’s harder to operate than in a wider confederation with many more members. But these obstacles can be overcome and nationalists who oppose it as it might diminish dreams of independence are maybe nearer the mark. After all, though support for Quebec sovereignty still exists. the many countries that operate federalism are by and large inherently stable

But its exponents have been muted, across all parties. Of course, the leaders who pronounced the vow have all now moved on and Gordon Brown returned to his lair. Brexit has supplanted Scottish independence as the constitutional issue of concern. But the political debate in Scotland still remains distinct and the powers of the Scottish Parliament an area of significant interest.

The Conservative position is, perhaps, to be expected given the party’s current staunch Unionism. David McLetchie and Annabel Goldie and others with their respect for Holyrood have been replaced by carpe baggers who see it simply as a launch pad for election to Westminster.

With their electoral collapse, the lack of visibility of the Liberal Democrats is, understandable. But Vince Cable doesn’t appear as committed as some in the past, to what was once their raison d’etre, along with proportional representation. The Liberal vision of Jo Grimond has been sold out, along with opposition to tuition fees, for electoral office under Nick Clegg.

But it is Labour which has most to gain from it and not just in Scotland. The progress made in the north of England by elected mayors has added to its power base under Sadiq Kahn in London. Jeremy Corbyn’s visit north was an opportunity to woo “soft nationalists” with the prospect of federalism.

The suggestion by Kezia Dugdale of rewriting the Treaty of Union was always fanciful and had been swiftly rebuffed by Mr Corbyn anyway. However, he did allude to federalism and his visit was a chance to outline it in greater detail.

Yet, that didn’t happen. His position remains as unclear as ever and indeed some loose language gave concern that he’s lukewarm in support of it. Reference to “the nations and regions of England” could be accepted as just ill-judged without meaning to be disrespectful to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

However, his comments on issues with separate legal systems either showed incredible ignorance of Scots Law’s existence through the centuries or of the situation in Europe where many federal systems apply. Concerns over the Wallonian Parliament and the trade deal with Canada spring to mind.

Mr Corbyn was portrayed as the Messiah but came across as yet another leader from the Great Metropolis of London, as ignorant of Stoke or Sunderland as Scotland. He fuelled fears of federalist talk being yet again for electoral expediency.

There’s a case for federalism, but it’s not being made. Those who alluded to it before and claim to espouse it now, have a duty to articulate it. It’s not that hard. It’s their commitment not the concept that’s in doubt.