WHERE is the indyref2 polling surge? That’s the cry in the mainstream press after a poll found less than a quarter of Scots want a second independence referendum in the next three years because of Brexit.

Of course like any good poll, it had other findings which tell a rather different story. Taken together with folk who want indyref2 for non-Brexit related reasons, 41 per cent want a second poll before the next Holyrood elections. And of those likely to vote, 46 per cent will support independence. Given there’s been no campaign for that constitutional destination since 2014, that’s little short of amazing.

READ MORE: Latest independence poll reveals big boost for Yes movement amid Brexit

But let’s be frank. The puzzle in the Ipsos Mori poll for STV is that whilst 61 per cent of Scots believe our economy will be worse off after leaving the EU, (with just 12 per cent believing it will get better) they don’t convert directly to supporters of independence – yet. Emily Gray, managing director of Ipsos Mori Scotland, said: “Scots’ pessimism about Brexit doesn’t appear to be giving rise to a clamour for a second referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future.” Well that is one way of looking at it. Another is to suggest that once the wheels visibly come off the Brexit cart, with visible rather than projected economic damage and lost jobs here rather than lost EU agencies in southern England, a majority may be ready to embrace a solution they couldn’t accept last time round – that we can run the show better ourselves.

At least, that’s one common sense explanation. But there are others.

READ MORE: Here's why poll results paint a rosy picture for the Yes movement's future

First – timing. The poll asked a very specific question about the timescale for indyref2. It’s one thing to realise independence is inevitable and another to be ready to take the life-rearranging plunge fairly pronto. The SNP hasn’t yet called or even started to talk about a referendum, so the option feels a bit hypothetical. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon is currently hell-bent on trying to protect the DEVOLVED powers of the Scottish Parliament and still (God love her) trying to find a way to save the whole of the UK, not just Scotland, from the post-Brexit crash. It is, of course, a catch-22 situation for the First Minister. If she puts independence back “on the table” she’ll be accused of recklessness by Unionist opponents. If she doesn’t, polls will probably continue to flatline, waiting for leadership and the real campaign to begin.

One reader commenting on the STV poll said; “I don’t support a second referendum just now but I do support Scottish independence. I merely don’t want another referendum until we can be reasonably sure of winning it. Once the impact of Brexit is truly felt I suspect many more people will see that we need to be rid of Westminster.” I’m sure many feel the same – yet it’s hard to know when definitive proof of Brexit’s damage will be sufficiently clear and catastrophic to hasten change.

READ MORE: It’s not too late for Scotland to take back control from hard Brexiteers

A second factor in the Brexit/indyref2 disconnect is the fear that independence will be many times more disruptive than Brexit. After all, Scots have been in the EU for a mere 40-plus years, but in the United Kingdom for more than 300. The costs of “separation” were wildly exaggerated in the run-up to the 2014 vote, when the UK Treasury were caught red-handed telling porkies. They quoted the London School of Economics (LSE) in their estimate of an immediate £2.7 billion bill to set up a new independent Scotland. But Patrick Dunleavy, LSE professor, said: “I don’t think they read my paper. The figures are bizarrely inaccurate.” Then Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed the figure was actually £1.5bn based on a paper by Robert Young of Western University, Canada. But he piped up to say his paper was estimating the cost of independence for Quebec. For Scotland he reckoned the costs would be nearer £600 million -- a quarter of the Treasury’s original estimate. As The National’s Stephen Paton pointed out at the time, that’s probably the share Scots will be expected to pay for a high-speed rail link they will never use. But of course, the oft-repeated scaremongering stuck in more voters’ minds than the contemptuous rebuttals from academics or the new estimates being produced by Common Weal in their Alternative White Paper.

Perhaps the most important issue though is that there are plenty of examples of countries becoming independent – the Czech Republic and Slovakia are just two of the most recent and most successful – and working together co-operatively as independent neighbouring states. The five Nordic nations have their own currencies and EU membership arrangements – some in, some out and in the case of Denmark both in (on the mainland) and out (in Faroes and Greenland). Yet they formed a Nordic Travel Area 40 years before Schengen and have all joined that structure even when they are not EU members to make trade and travel easier with neighbours.

READ MORE: No breakthrough on Brexit power grab as Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May meet

When devolution started after the 1997 referendum, large amounts of legal and constitutional change occurred. But the only price tag that stuck in the public’s mind was the cost of the Parliament building, because Tony Blair’s government supported setting up a new devolved Parliament and wasn’t trying to problematise the practicalities. In 2014 most European leaders insisted an iScotland would be at the back of the queue to rejoin the EU. Now even the Spaniards have said they will not veto a Scots application and the EU representative in the UK Jacqueline Minor admits Scotland would be readier than any other applicant because we have already complied with EU regulations for 40 years. There could even be competition amongst European trading blocs for Scotland’s membership because an iScotland would have options closed to Britain. We could seek to join the “halfway house” of the EEA inhabited by fishing-rich nations Iceland and Norway. Of course the EEA has high membership fees, no say in decision-making and a requirement to comply with freedom of movement.

But Scots can only benefit from greater immigration, and the fact EEA members are not in the EU customs union could be useful if a Brexited rUK is also outside. The wee nations in EFTA (the route into the EEA) are positive about the prospect of Scotland joining, whilst the Conservative Norwegian foreign minister has already said the UK is too big and market-dominated.

Finally, Scottish independence might have a small impact on other states, but it is fundamentally a matter between two countries. Brexit involves 27 full EU members and three in EFTA with access to the single market. That makes for a much more complex “divorce”.

Of course setting up new arrangements with the rUK would be no walk in the park. But it would be our walk in the park. And it’s just possible the divvy-up would come at a time when the horrors of Brexit have introduced some notes of realism and self-awareness into Britain’s overly guid conceit of itself. In short, there is a lot of precedent for dividing assets after two parts of one state separate. There is no precedent for leaving the European Union.

NOW that’s just my opinion and I’m the first to accept it may be biased and incompletely considered. But who else is gathering evidence on what might soon be a vital issue for Scots? Have any academics grouped together to investigate this big issue (apologies if some already have)? Is there any hope the BBC or STV will spend some time and money taking all shades of opinion on this vital issue? No there isn’t. Once again, Yessers must investigate this argument ourselves.

A final reason for the mismatch between Brexit pessimism and demand for an immediate second indyref is an old friend -- TINA. There Is No Alternative. Scots have no clear picture of how different things might be if we had control. No TV reports of other European countries doing quite nicely right now – even in the euro.

I’m almost fed up hearing myself batter on about this but how many folk know about the extraordinarily flexible arrangements in normal EU countries like Denmark where the bulk of the country is in the EU but the devolved Faroes and Greenland are not? How many folk know that Scotland’s population of 1.6 million was 70 per cent greater than Norway in 1800, 50 per cent bigger in 1900 and today, almost the same. What are the reasons for this stagnation? Does no-one in the media think it’s worth finding out, or does simply asking the question sound like a pro-independence act?

I’m sure lots of Scots are waiting for leadership, clarity, evidence of Brexit, and a better idea of how small countries succeed before they hitch their fortunes to the cause of independence. Given the circumstances that’s not altogether daft – it’s canny.