Almost as inevitable as Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation was John Swinney’s immediate demand for a second referendum.

Just about anything passes for a trigger for indyref2 these days, admittedly, probably including Scotland being knocked out of the World Cup.

But the SNP is keen to capitalise on the familiar concept of ‘Westminster chaos’ to bolster the case for splitting up the UK.

Holyrood chaos doesn’t count, of course, even though we’re on to our third First Minister in as many years.

The bigger question is what an Andy Burnham premiership – assuming it comes to pass – portends for Scotland, and the omens are far from good.

While he’s against independence, he is in favour of radical devolution and constitutional reform.

He argues that the best answer to Scottish disenchantment with the UK, or the perception of it, is a much more federal and decentralised Union.

Mr Burnham claims the UK’s political system needs to be ‘completely rewired’ and, in 2022, he said Scotland should enjoy powers ‘as close as you can get to home rule’ while remaining within the UK.

During a visit to Edinburgh he revealed he sought a meeting with then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to discuss these weighty matters, although he claimed he didn’t receive a response from her office.

The Scottish Government later disputed that account (perhaps Ms Sturgeon would argue she had no ‘conscious memory’ of Mr Burnham’s car pulling up outside Bute House).

We don’t yet know whether this ‘rewiring’ will come to pass, just as we don’t know for sure whether Mr Burnham will try to extend his philosophy of ‘Manchesterism’ to other parts of the UK, or even what it means.

It’s a vague project, and to any objective outsider it looks like the same old hat that’s held us back for years.

Mr Burnham has no more of an idea how to run the UK than his hapless predecessor but is treated as something akin to the Messiah by desperate Labour backbenchers who feared losing their jobs if Sir Keir hung around.

Likewise, we don’t know how hard Mr Burnham will push to rejoin the EU, an economically ruinous move that would force us into replacing sterling with the euro.

But it’s not a bad idea to listen to what politicians are saying if you really want to know what they’re going to do – though quite often that’s hardly an accurate barometer.

During the Makerfield by-election, Mr Burnham said he didn’t want to ‘rerun’ Brexit arguments and tried to stay quiet on the issue – but he can’t do so indefinitely. Yet in September last year, he said he wanted to see the UK back in the EU within his lifetime.

The European fixation that caused such schism and stasis was laid to rest – but Sir Keir sought to disinter it, and now it threatens to dominate political discourse again thanks to Mr Burnham – bad news for the million or so Scots who voted for Brexit.

Equally, the prospect of adding fuel to the fire of the independence ‘debate’ in Scotland, such as it is, should be enough to make your blood run cold.

That is precisely what Mr Burnham is likely to do, when he gets round to it, and of course it will be music to the ears of the SNP.

Sir Keir stonewalled a second referendum, partly because he was otherwise occupied trying to hold onto his job.

But a politician who wants a strengthened Scottish parliament and a beefed-up devolution settlement might be more willing to cave in to the Nationalists’ call for a rerun of the 2014 independence vote. Frankly, the last thing Scotland needs is turbo-charged devolution, given the state of the country under the existing set-up.

We’ve already seen the havoc that can be wrought under the current arrangements in terms of sky-high taxes.

More devolution at a time when devolution is failing is exactly the wrong approach. Ceding power over energy to the SNP government would consign us to a long future of eco-zealotry and unutilised North Sea oil and gas reserves.

While Mr Swinney has softened his rhetoric on opposition to fossil fuels, his party’s drubbing at the polls in Aberdeen South shows the voters aren’t buying it.

More taxation powers would be calamitous, given that the SNP has used those it already has to wreak devastation on the nation’s bank balances.

The Scottish Government has control over large swathes of the welfare system, which helps to explain why the bill is hurtling towards £9billion a year.

Let’s face it, Holyrood has a surplus of power and it’s been abused for years, so the notion that what we need is more of it is for the birds.

Mr Burnham is presented by his supporters as a panacea, but some of those telling us he’s the future said the same thing about Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir – a Venn diagram of lethal misjudgment.

Sir Keir set the lowest of bars for his successor and Mr Burnham’s strongest suit appears to be that he’s an effective communicator – something that was far beyond the current incumbent’s skillset.

The problem isn’t how he communicates but the content – and we shouldn’t expect it to be anything other than yet more failed socialist dogma.

It’s telling that Sir Keir’s resignation led to a fall in the pound with gilt yields climbing as financial markets’ concerns about a Burnham leadership grew at an alarming pace.

Britain already has problems with debt, growth and productivity and none of those will be addressed by wealth taxes and eye-watering spending commitments – such as the £100billion renationalisation of the water industry, advocated by Mr Burnham.

Just five months ago, Mr Burnham said the UK was too ‘in hock to the bond markets’ – but as Prime Minister he will be at their mercy.

The grasping SNP has warmed to the idea of wealth taxes – its ‘mansion tax’ is a proposed council tax surcharge for homes worth more than £1million, due to take effect on April 1, 2028.

Earlier this month, Finance Secretary Jenny Gilruth said ‘meaningful’ reform of tax would require ‘significant’ co-operation from the UK Government, and called for a ‘broad, evidence-based conversation’ on how Scotland can tax wealth more effectively.

As we know all too well, it’s the kind of conversation that tends to become rapidly one-sided.

Mr Burnham might well offer that ‘co-operation’, egging on Ms Gilruth to pursue her ideological warfare regardless of the consequences for the economy, including a growing exodus of wealth creators.

His support for rewiring the constitutional settlement in Britain, whatever that might turn out to mean, may also prove to be a major boost for the separatist cause.

By reopening this Pandora’s box, Mr Burnham risks playing into the SNP’s hands and hastening another referendum.

Make no mistake: a supposed new beginning for the UK under Mr Burnham as PM could sow the seeds of yet more disharmony for the Union.