WE have just passed Bloomsday, the annual opportunity to commemorate the events, bizarre, comical and poignant, chronicled by the Irish writer James Joyce in his magnificent novel, Ulysses.

His narrative blends description, history, unrelated distractions, random thoughts, emotions; the entire panoply, indeed, of sentient and subconscious life.

However, in relation to his native land, Joyce is an enigma. He left Ireland at a young age, calling down contumely on the entrenched attitudes he had encountered.

Yet, for the rest of his life, he was apparently unable to write about anywhere else. His combined canon forms an anthem of awkward praise to the characters of his youthful, Irish environment.

Something vaguely comparable appears to be happening to UK Conservative Cabinet Ministers, with regard to Scotland. Particularly to that exiled Aberdonian, Michael Gove.

Read more from Brian Taylor: Sturgeon and Johnson are political enemies but there’s one issue where they agree

Not, to be quite clear, that they have an ambivalent, Joycean attitude towards Scotland itself. Rather, they seem equivocal, uncertain how to respond to the continuing independence discourse north of the Border.

With one breath, UK ministers scorn the very concept of indyref2. Foolish notion. Wrong time. How could anyone with a modicum of intellect suggest such a thing?

Yet they seem unable to let the matter lie. They return again and again to the idea, trying it for size, teasing it out, tormenting themselves in the by-going.

The latest notion to be floated is that the franchise for such a referendum is wrong. It should, apparently, be extended to include Scots living elsewhere in the UK, not just in Scotland.

This idea was disclosed with apparent gravity to a London-based newspaper and they were quite right to bring it to our attention.

The same Cabinet source favoured the Return of Ruth. Davidson, that is. She, seemingly, could energise the Unionist campaign.

Three tiny points on that. It is scarcely a vote of confidence in Douglas Ross, he who leads the Scottish Tories. Secondly, Ruth seems, if anything, to be keeping out of sight for now, presumably giving him a chance.

Thirdly, while she is undoubtedly an extremely effective campaigner, one wonders whether the adoption of a titled position in the unelected House of Lords might take the edge off her popular appeal. Just a fraction.

But back to independence and the franchise. Firstly, we should comprehend the semi-permanent search for an answer to the Scottish Question. It is, after all, rather a big deal.

Nothing much at stake. Just the recreation of an independent Scotland. Just the end of a 300-year-old Union. Just an opportunity or a threat, according to taste, with regard to relations on these islands.

And, as always now, the question of Europe. Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs on the final Holyrood day this week that she was determined to give Scots the chance to determine their own future, rather than leaving it to what she called “Brexit Tories”.

But which Scots? The notion proffered this week was that folk of Caledonian origin, now resident elsewhere in the UK, might also participate in the next independence referendum, whenever it is held. As Sir John Curtice, the eminent psephologist noted in The Herald, that would “undoubtedly” help the Unionist cause.

Which is precisely why it is being floated. But how do you settle the franchise? Do you complete a form? Ticking the box that asks: “Have you ever attended a concert by The Proclaimers?”

More seriously, it would presumably have to be by certificated birth in Scotland, not just the capacity to belt out Five Hundred Miles?

If so, why restrict that to residents of the current UK? Why not extend the right to vote to the entire Scots diaspora?

It might be argued that Scottish independence would impact the rest of the UK. Hence the extension. In which case, should we enfranchise all UK citizens for the referendum ballot?

READ MORE: Read more from Brian Taylor:  Why does Nicola Sturgeon want a pact with the Greens? There's more to it than meets the eye...

Except that would, arguably, remove the fundamental concept which is that the people of Scotland are free to decide; that they cannot be held in a voluntary, negotiated Union against their evident will.

But say the practical problems could be surmounted. Think of this another way. If the extended ballot is confined to those who are Scots-born, what does that mean for the franchise in Scotland itself? Should their right to vote also be determined by birth? Rather than the broader designation of residence in the territory designated as Scotland?

The Scottish Referendum Study of 2014, backed by the Economic and Social Research Council, conducted a post-polling survey.

It found, again according to Sir John Curtice, that the Yes vote would have received something of a boost if it had been confined to those born and resident in Scotland.

To be absolutely clear, neither Nicola Sturgeon nor her predecessors have ever suggested such a venture. Theirs has long been a civic, inclusive nationalism, founded upon the precept of popular consent among all those who choose to make their lives and pursue their hopes in Scotland.

To be fair, further, the notion of altering the franchise is not something that has been seriously advanced by the Prime Minister, nor Michael Gove, nor anyone else in UK power. It is, however, intriguing that it is being privately canvassed by some.

Which brings me to the core issue. Where does the power lie to determine the rules governing any further plebiscite?

By statute, it rests with Westminster and the UK Government, presumably in consultation with Holyrood. Intriguingly, there is to be a hearing in the UK Supreme Court next week to decide legislative competence on two Holyrood Bills. The Scottish and UK governments are in dispute.

Quite separately, Mr Gove says he does not want the question of referendum competence to end up in court.

Rather, he wants to focus on other matters. Asked this week whether there were circumstances in which the PM might consent to indyref2 before the next UK General Election, he replied: “I don’t think so”.

Which was interpreted in some quarters as thwarting Ms Sturgeon’s ambitions. Not sure about that. It sounds to me more in keeping with the equivocation which, understandably, assails UK Ministerial thinking, given the extent of the challenge and the scope of the issue.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.