After three centuries, this seems likely to be the year of Scotland’s revenge. In 1707 the last Scottish Parliament of the old order dissolved itself and Scottish sovereignty was transferred from Edinburgh to London.

In their hearts many Scots never accepted this English predominance. They rebelled in 1715 and 1745, but it was not until May of this year that they elected, with a plurality of only one seat, a Scottish government committed to Scottish independence. I admire Alex Salmond’s achievement as leader of the Scottish National Party.

In a month’s time in Lisbon, Gordon Brown, who is a Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will go to the European summit to approve a treaty that will transfer many of the remaining powers of British sovereignty to the European Union.

Although the Scottish people were given two constitutional referendums to establish Scottish devolution, no such consideration will be given to the British people, if the Prime Minister can avoid it. Certainly, the English people, however much they might object to becoming one of the western provinces of a European empire, will be allowed no chance to decide the matter for themselves.

It is extraordinary how many Scots are involved in this end game of English independence. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister who signed the original European constitution and negotiated the new European treaty, comes from a Scottish family and went to Fettes, a school sometimes called the Eton of Scotland. Gordon Brown is himself a deeply Scottish personality: he was born and bred in the Scottish culture. It is not clear that this culture, admirable as it is, includes an understanding of the English. He has not heard the magic of Camelot.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, is another admirable Scot, Glasgow-educated, with a Fife seat. Even the Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, is another Scot.

The immediate argument concerns the issue of a European referendum. All three parties at the 2005 general election promised to hold a referendum on the European constitutional treaty. France and the Netherlands duly held referendums and voted against the treaty. The treaty has subsequently been renegotiated and cosmetic changes have been made – the sinister old tart of a treaty has changed the colour of her lipstick, but she is still a witch.

The Prime Minister pretends this is no longer a constitutional treaty, but it still contains 40 substantial constitutional changes, and they are the same as are in the original constitutional treaty itself. It is a fraud to pretend that the new treaty does not have the same significance as the treaty that the French and Dutch both voted down.

It would be a breach of confidence for a Government elected on a promise to hold a referendum now not to have one. If the treaty becomes law, we shall be living in a different country: we shall have lost our independence in 2007, as Scotland did in 1707.

I am sympathetic to the principle of independence. I have never doubted that the existence of the United Kingdom was a benefit to England, that it helped the English to achieve great things.

Nor have I ever doubted that the British helped to save the world from tyranny in the Napoleonic wars, and in the two world wars of the 20th century. The United Kingdom has, on balance, been a force for good in the world. Yet the Scottish, whom I also admire, should have an unfettered right to regain their independence if they so wish. That is a matter for the whole Scottish people.

I certainly do not believe that the issue of Scottish independence is a matter for me, or for the English generally. However much we may admire the Scots, we do not have the right to take their national decisions on independence away from them. The English are not Scottish: we cannot really understand Scottish nationalism.

I am sure that Gordon Brown is a British patriot: no doubt we would share many sympathies and loyalties which spring from that. Yet I do not believe that Mr Brown is an English nationalist any more than I am a Scottish nationalist. He has failed to measure the reality of English nationalism.

The British Empire was itself too distant and detached about the nationalism of its constituent peoples. Two of our greatest mistakes were made in the creation of the United Kingdom itself. They were the abolition of the Scottish Parliament in 1707 and of the Irish Parliament in 1798. England persuaded or bribed both of those parliaments to legislate themselves out of existence. In both countries there were vigorous protests: in Ireland there was the 1798 Rebellion, followed by two centuries of simmering revolt.

The lesson of English law and history is that independence does not belong to the monarch, or even to the parliament; it belongs to the people. That is why a national referendum is the only right way to decide whether national independence should be transferred to a foreign power, or should be reclaimed.

No one now doubts that it was right to hold referendums on the issue of Scottish and Welsh devolution. It is astonishing that anyone doubts that a European treaty that transfers extensive constitutional powers to the European Union, with an open-ended clause to extend those powers, cannot be legitimately ratified without a referendum.

Some people, perhaps the English people in particular, are worried by English nationalism. I am not. I think that a healthy nationalism is the shield of liberty. We know what the English people want. The latest poll for Great Britain shows that 60 per cent want a referendum on a European treaty: only 16 per cent are opposed.

I do not think that Gordon Brown is English, or that he understands that English nationalism is just as attached to independence as Scottish. He cannot afford, even as a politician, to go back on his manifesto promise of a referendum. That could destroy him and his party. All sound politics is based on trust.

Times Recommends

• Hysteria alert: Fab One tour starts
• Whodunnits? A cultural religion
• Prison works. So why won't we admit it?