Given the unprecedented psychological stress of the American presidential election, the possibility of Scottish independence may not, admittedly, seem like a very urgent matter. But after the U.K.’s vote to leave the E.U., however, much is threatened by renewed calls for Scottish independence—most compellingly, Britain’s influence on the international stage, the viability of its nuclear arsenal, and its position as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

It is hard to absorb the potential break up of your own country on top of an all-too-obvious breakdown. But the constitutional crisis of the last few days, triggered by the High Court’s (sensible) ruling that Parliament must be consulted on the terms of Britain’s exit from the E.U., has emphasized the deep rifts in the United Kingdom between right and liberal left, between young and old, and, critically, between Scotland, where 62 percent voted to remain, and England, where just 46.6 did.

In response to the Brexit vote, Nicola Sturgeon, the sure-footed first minister of Scotland, and leader of the Scottish National Party, published plans for a possible second independence referendum, just two years after 55 percent of Scots voted to remain in the United Kingdom. Things have changed a lot since the fall of 2014, and the Scots now appear adamant that they will do whatever it takes to protect their rights and stay in the European single market. Sturgeon and the British prime minister Theresa May have had some awkward meetings, not least because May was unable to tell Sturgeon exactly what Brexit meant—would there be an attempt to stay? Was it a hard out?—while insisting that she alone would trigger Article 50, the mechanism that would start the departure process. So when news broke on Thursday that the High Court had ruled against May’s wishes, Sturgeon made a very good point about the judgment. “It underlines the total confusion and chaos at the heart of the U.K. government,” she said. “We should remember that their refusal to allow a vote in the House of Commons is not some matter of high constitutional principle, it’s because they don’t have a coherent position and they know that if they take their case to the House of Commons, that will be exposed.”

Sturgeon cited this reason when suggesting that she would consider joining the next stage of the legal fight in the U.K. Supreme Court. That, of course, would be an extraordinary move—one U.K. leader challenging another in the highest court of the land, with a draft independence bill in her back pocket. A year ago, this would all have been unimaginable, but then again, 2016 has been a strange year in many ways. “May you live in interesting times” goes the fabled Chinese curse often quoted by the British.

My guess, looking forward, is that parliamentary sovereignty will now probably be respected, and this is Sturgeon’s chance to exercise the Scottish National Party’s muscle in the House of Commons, where she has 56 M.P.s, who, to a man and woman, are opposed to Brexit—particularly hard Brexit, the version which has no regard for the likely impact on people’s rights and economic security. Whether this will have any good effect is another question. Britain is in the grip of heedless English nationalism, which could well end in some form of populist tyranny. That worries the Scots, and it may push them to take an early vote.

Of course, it is very hard to predict what will happen in 2017. May could call an election and win a landslide victory against the opposition Labor Party, which, with the re-election of the utterly useless left-winger Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, does not figure in any sensible political calculations. (Corbyn trails 16 points behind the Conservatives in the latest ICM poll.) By this time next year, in fact, we could see May presiding with absolute power over absolute chaos, and the Scots heading for their very own exit. And what is perhaps most astonishing—actually, stomach-churning—is that we now know that the prime minister who shrilly proclaimed, “Brexit means Brexit,” was all along deeply worried about Brexit’s consequences. In a private meeting with Goldman Sachs bankers one month before the June referendum, May said, “I think the economic arguments are clear. I think being part of a 500 million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the U.K. because it is the U.K. in Europe.