I KNEW when I started campaigning for an independent Scotland that, should we ever be successful, it would not be my ideal version of Scotland.

I campaign and work for an independent Scotland so that the people living here decide what that Scotland is. Any sensible person must accept that governments of an independent Scotland will make mistakes, some might be corrupt, others might be inept. However, the people who live here would be able to get shot of them in an election.

We all know that respective population sizes mean that Scots alone can’t remove a UK Government. We all know that a UK Government rarely even needs Scottish MPs to pass legislation that affects our day-to-day lives. When a law is enacted at Westminster, or a decision taken, that the majority of Scots agree with, it is coincidental.

READ MORE: Bernie Sanders weighs in on Scottish independence debate

So, it leaves me somewhat confused when people who profess to be in favour of an independent Scotland say they would vote No in a referendum should the leader of the SNP be someone they don’t like, or because a policy voted for by MSPs in Holyrood is one they disagree with.

This seems nonsensical on its face.

Firstly, the SNP is only one party. Independence is not about one party, let alone one individual.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, what on earth do these people think an independent Scotland would be? Set in stone by the leader of party most central to its delivery at the time of its (re)birth?

Being an independent country means putting the future decisions affecting those living here in the hands of those living here. It means taking responsibility for decisions we as a nation have never had to take. And it means recognising that we will share that responsibility with everyone who lives here – not just everyone who agrees with us.

READ MORE: Bernie Sanders is right: It's time for Scotland to make our choice on independence

Decisions not just about what currency we use, or if we (re)join the EU, or if we become a republic, but decisions that we cannot even yet fathom. So, inevitably, it means accepting that decisions will be taken with which you may viscerally disagree.

The point is not what decisions are made, but who makes them – and if we can vote out those who do. It is about the collective voice of the people living in Scotland being the final one, rather than that of a government we didn’t elect and can’t remove.

Scots haven’t had to take crucial decisions about defence, foreign policy, macro-economics. We have been able to keep our principles unsullied by reality.

We have been able to be idealists without ever being forced to put those ideals into practice in the real world. And so we haven’t had to face up to the possibility that our fellow Scots may not hold the principles we ourselves cling to.

READ MORE: ‘SNP membership not as socially liberal as might be assumed’

Is the realisation that Scotland won’t be your version of perfect enough to make you vote for Scotland to be limited by an envelope designed by Westminster?

To paraphrase a problematic gent from down the road, an independent Scotland won’t be pretty, but it’s better than the alternatives. An independent Scotland isn’t the end point, it’s the start point. If we are to win independence we need to convince a majority of Scots not only to accept that uncertainty, but to welcome it.

To take the responsibility for building a country in the world we’re in, and be adult enough to accept the limitations of a democracy. We as a movement have to accept and welcome the same.

Duncan Gill
via email