Eat your heart out, George Roberston. A few days back the Defence Secretary took time out from the war in Yugoslavia to boldly predict that devolution would "kill nationalism stone dead".
Taking comfort where they could find it last night (for despite the "spin", they remain in serious trouble), Tory insiders scorned Mr Robertson's claims in light of Thursday's elections which, as one put it, "have given nationalism its greatest boost ever".
From Cardiff one could fancy the howls of derision from Dafydd Wigley after the political "earthquake" which handed Plaid Cymru twice its previous best-share of the popular vote, and denied Labour an overall majority in the new National Assembly. Plaid had the added thrill of watching Alan Michael, Secretary of State and Labour's putative First Secretary, eventually scrape home courtesy of its spectacular win over Labour in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr.
And mocking laughter too from Scotland, where the Scottish National Party - while undoubtedly disappointed with its take of the seats - looked set to equal its previous 1974 record share of the vote, and is firmly established as the official opposition to Labour.
Eat your heart out, too, John Prescott. Earlier this week, on the campaign trail in Edinburgh, Mr Prescott made no secret of his contempt for notions of "Lib-Labbery" in a new world of pluralism and political inclusivity. That familiar scowl in place, the deputy prime minister happily confirmed the impression of a wholly unreconstructed, good old-fashioned Labour man who, having fought long and hard for political power, could see no good reason why he should share the spoils with anyone else.
By last night Labour was set for a hard negotiation with the Liberal Democrats on terms for a formal coalition in Edinburgh, while contemplating whether it could form a minority administration in Cardiff. New Labour had promised a "new politics". Suddenly they were getting it, in spades.
Striving to maximise their party share of the vote, Donald Dewar, Scotland's First Secretary elect, and Jim Wallace, the Lib Dem's would-be king-maker, played coy on the coalition question to the last. Even in the early hours yesterday, as the first results pointed to the likely necessity, Charles Kennedy, a possible successor to Paddy Ashdown, was insisting that coalition was not inevitable. He suggested a minority administration, obliged to "work with the grain" of the new parliament on specific issues, could be both a healthy and democratic outcome.
However, Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair have long hoped for the opportunity to effect a realignment of the left. They were denied the chance in 1997 by the sheer size of Labour's victory (much to Mr Precott's relief). Yesterday they seized the moment. Mr Ashdown made plain that "of course" he wanted his party in Scotland to enter a coalition. Mr Blair promptly confirmed that Scottish Labour would be entering negotiations to that end.
If this struck a jarring note yesterday it went unnoticed in the general euphoria, sense of history and new beginnings, generated by the completion of the elections to Scotland's first parliament in 300 years. But one wondered if, four years down the line, the London-based Prime Minister might so promptly pronounce on the outcome of a Scottish general election.
As it was, even before the formal negotiations had begun, the prospect of a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition was last night generating keen speculation on the kind of issues which could present difficulty for Mr Dewar and Mr Wallace - not to mention cause tensions between Scottish and London Labour, and within Mr Blair's cabinet itself.
Mr Prescott, Jack Straw and others can be expected to resist strongly any Lib Dem demand for proportional representation in local government as part of the price for a Holyrood pact. And the Chancellor will keep a wary eye on the financial implications of any Scottish-driven policy, whether on the abolition of student tuition fees or anything else.
Suddenly the theory gives way to the practice. Mr Brown and Mr Blair are about to discover that the governance of Britain has, overnight, become an infinitely more complex affair. Nor will it just be the Tories who will be watchful for anything emanating from Holyrood which threatens to disadvantage their English constituents. English Labour MPs, too, may see the emerging argument over tuition fees as but the beginning a long-road-back to the conveniently ignored, but ever-present, West Lothian Question concerning the role of Scottish and Welsh MPs in the post-devolution era.
The local elections may come to resemble Budget Day statements - favourable first impressions giving way to more critical appraisal on second and third inspection. Tory gains of some 1,500 seats have clearly taken the immediate heat off Mr Hague. But - against the backdrop of 2,000 losses in the same contests in '95, and an amazingly low (29 per cent) turnout - this was no dramatic breakthrough. Labour was able to boast an unprecedented larger share of the vote for a governing party at mid-term; the Tory take showed little movement on a year ago; and the scale of the swing to them was nowhere near the mark necessary to put Mr Hague in serious contention for a general election barely two years away.
Such was the state of the Conservative and Unionist Party on the day the constitutional map of Britain was redrawn - reinforcing the sense that it will be for Labour as the "Party of the Union" to resolve the contradictions in Mr Blair's great project.
But it is no longer a matter of political or constitutional theory. After the "event", time for the "process'.' Alex Salmond last night observed that "oppositions have a habit of becoming governments". In the midst of his celebrations - and he had much to celebrate - Mr Blair could hardly deny that.