The rejection by the Supreme Court of Holyrood’s ability to stage IndyRef2 was the least surprising political development of the year.
It only took judges weeks to reach their conclusion - a ruling senior SNP figures expected.
By backing the UK Government they also slammed the door on the idea that MSPs get to determine the trigger for another referendum.
Talk of mandates and majorities are a viable currency in the political world, but in legal land they hold no sway. A second referendum will only take place as and when a deal is struck with Westminster.
With the Sunak Government playing hardball in rejecting another vote, these are difficult times for the First Minister and her Cabinet.
But the Supreme Court decision raises the question of the legitimate route out of the UK for Scotland
To say Scots cannot be allowed to change their minds in the medium to long term looks untenable.
The obvious solution to this political impasse would be a joint agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments which laid out the conditions for indyref2 to be staged.
It does not take a political Einstein to work out the contours of such an agreement.
A pro-independence majority at Holyrood would likely be one criterion. A sustained shift in favour of independence - say, 60 per cent support over two years - would be another trigger.
Deciding whether the conditions had been met could be determined by an independent commission, which would take Scotland off the tedious rollercoaster of phantom referendum dates.
A more uncomfortable truth for the pro-independence movement is that the Unionist side has the leverage over the conduct of any referendum.
To put it bluntly, the UK Government has the power to sit down for talks and agree to nothing.
Some of the suggestions from the wilder elements in the Unionist camp can be discounted.
Altering the 2014 franchise so that it includes Scots living outside their homeland looks like gerrymandering. Quite why people who have chosen to leave Scotland should have a say on the future is a mystery.
Changing the question from Yes/No to Leave/Remain also reeks of jolly japes dreamt up over champagne cocktails. It is not a serious proposition.
The idea of adding a devo max option on the ballot has more credibility, but the absence of any political party adopting this position makes it speculative at best.
Until such a proposition comes forward any future referendum would have to be a straight question on independence.
The bigger issue to consider is what would happen in the aftermath of a second referendum.
Imagine the issue from the perspective of a Unionist voter. If Scots voted Yes, they would feel like they had lost their country and experience an overwhelming sense of loss. The price of defeat for these voters is huge.
But what would the price be for the pro-independence side of another defeat?
When I asked the First Minister in the summer whether she could rule out a third referendum if she lost indyref2, she declined. She instead gave her usual answer of not being able to tie the hands of her successor.
This is not good enough. Scottish politics has been dominated by the independence debate for over a decade and the idea of IndyRef3 being kept on the table is ridiculous.
Giving voters finality, regardless of the outcome, should be part of any pre-referendum deal.
It would mean the pro-UK side, in advance, unequivocally accepting a Yes vote would result in Scotland becoming independent.
On the pro-independence side, it could involve Westminster and Holyrood having to pass a law accepting that a No vote would result in no further referenda for at least 30 years.
All negotiations require give and take. Sturgeon should make clear defeat means accepting devolution.
To sign up to the Daily Record Politics newsletter, click here.
