In 1955, the Quebec Liberal Party (QLP), which by then had been around for almost a century, formally separated from the Liberal Party of Canada. Five years later, in 1960, it won the elections to the National Assembly – the devolved parliament of Quebec within the Canadian federation akin to the Scottish Parliament within the UK – after 16 years of power for the Union Nationale.

The QLP is a fully autonomous party which stands for election solely to the National Assembly. It is a pro-Canada party but has no involvement in the politics or elections of the Canadian federal parliament in Ottawa. It’s members are free to, and do, join and vote for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois or anyone else at federal level. The two are not linked; there is a level of maturity and understanding in politics, in the media and in the population that provincial politics and federal politics have synergies, but one does not subsume the other.

The QLP is far from alone. The Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) is a nationalist party which currently sits in government in the province, but it has no links to the Bloc in Ottawa – indeed, ideologically it is quite different.

Nor is this system of party separation between province and federation unique to Quebec. In the heart of government, Ontario, the government of the Legislative Assembly in Toronto is currently run by the Progressive Conservatives, a party with no link to the Conservative Party of Canada up Highway 7 in Ottawa.

READ MORE: Sturgeon faces CalMac ferry inquiry calls

What has this got to do with us? Well, it teaches us that the actions we think are impossible are actually possible. It teaches us that the actions we think are damaging are actually rewarding. And it teaches those of us immersed in Scottish constitutional politics that the actions we think will destroy the United Kingdom are actually those which are most likely to hold it together.

Also in 1955, Scotland’s Unionist Party won its final, emphatic election victory. A decade later, it took the opposite step that Quebec’s Liberals had taken, by folding itself into England’s Conservative Party.

Since then, the QLP has had six periods of government in Quebec, the last coming to an end only at the last Assembly election. Readers will know very well that Scotland’s Tories have not been able to replicate that success. Ironically, in fact, the upturn in its fortunes since the independence referendum in 2014 has arisen only because it has become something more similar to the Scottish Unionist party which it killed over half a century ago.

The argument about the future of the Scottish centre-right, and indeed the future of all pro-UK parties in the Scottish Parliament, comes and goes, and I have written about it several times on these pages.

It rears its head again, now, following the visit to Scotland earlier this month of Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Not for the first time, a Tory leader’s visit to Scotland was not a resounding success.

Indeed, in my experience of first organising, and then observing, leaders’ visits to Scotland is that there is no such thing as a successful one.

Such an occasion is a large, flashing red light on the Scottish party’s risk register. Back in the days when I was involved, which is now nearly 15 years ago, the optimal outcome was "no detriment". We wanted to escape without a mortal wound. Anything else was a bonus.

I imagine the party still sees these occasions through the same lens, particularly with Mr Johnson as the occupant of the office. The Prime Minister’s flair and fluidity is both his brilliance and his undoing. Those qualities which win Brexit referendums and knock down red walls, that unquantifiable ability to convince people he is one of them, largely appear to stop at the border.

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Spare me the emissions of fake virtue over Cop26

The Scottish party leadership will now, just about, be recovering from the chaos which ensued when Mr Johnson made his off-the-cuff remark about Scotland getting a head start in its fight against climate change when Margaret Thatcher closed coal mines.

Mrs Thatcher, again. You have to be 52 years old to have been able to cast your vote in an election in which she was Prime Minister, but it is the legacy which will not go away.

Sometimes in life, brand names become so terribly damaged that they cannot be recovered. In those instances, the people associated with that brand, who invariably have much to offer, disperse to other brands or create a new brand of their own in order to further their ideas and make their contribution.

That is rational behaviour based on the belief that the engine which sits behind the brand is more important than the bodywork which sits on top.

Ten years ago, in the Scottish Conservative leadership contest, these arguments had their airing. I was deeply involved in that campaign, and a senior party grandee told me at the time, to paraphrase, that if we cracked the egg it would never go back in the shell.

How true. The debate will never go away until it is ended by the injection of some Canadian guts.

Scotland’s Tories think they are doing rather well, at the moment. And, depending on how one defines success, I suppose they are. They have perfected the art of the single-issue campaign, and they are now a semi-permanent home for the 25-or-so percent of the population which wants to oppose a second independence referendum at all costs.

It may get away with perpetuating this strategy for a while to come. But the Tories should understand that it is a strategy for opposition, not for government. It is not a winning strategy; it is a strategy which stops other people from winning.

And right now there is the fundamental decision for Scotland’s Tories. Do they want to be in government, or in opposition? Do they want to win, or do they just want to stop the SNP winning a majority?

The Scottish Tories dislike the Quebec analogy. They dislike the precedent of a separate party structure. They dislike the precedent of a second independence referendum. Here’s a precedent they might prefer – No to independence for the Quebecers, at the last opinion poll, was 24 points ahead.

Andy Maciver is director of Message Matters.

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