THIS is probably going to be my last article for quite some time. I hope to entertain, and to challenge you, while responding to Stephen Noon’s suggestion in The National of March 20 that we look to Pope Francis as an inspiration for leadership.

Servant leadership is important in religion. In politics, the idea that a leader can simply pour themselves out as an offering to God, seems improbable. Whatever else, great political leaders have no shortage of ego. They come with a transformative vision for their society. Being the right person for the times, they implement it.

The great leaders in Britain include Clement Attlee in 1945, and Margaret Thatcher in 1979. In the US, Barack Obama promised to be great – but he was never able to overcome the partisanship which mars American politics. Nelson Mandela, able to transcend the violence of apartheid, was unquestionably great. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has perhaps had greatness thrust upon him, as he has become a war leader.

Among Scotland’s political leaders, Donald Dewar worked tirelessly to overcome scepticism within the Labour Party about the need for devolution. Alex Salmond took the SNP from opposition, to minority government, to majority government, and, despite losing the referendum on independence, to being the dominant force in Scottish politics.

Noon believes that none of the candidates for the SNP’s leadership have such a commanding personality. Let’s wait and see – Attlee was widely seen as an interim leader in 1935 when the Tories had a majority of more than 200 seats. Many Tories thought that Thatcher was little more than a stalking horse when she challenged Ted Heath’s leadership.

But none of this is authentically Scottish. I have a nostalgic tendency to look to the Scottish Enlightenment for inspiration. But the Enlightenment was an elite movement. The social movements of the mid-19th century might provide us with a better inspiration.

Having lunch recently with Michael Fry, we talked about the great Scottish theologian, social reformer, and political economist, Thomas Chalmers. In each of two great campaigns in the 1830s and 1840s, Chalmers raised the equivalent of more than £1 billion in today’s money.

Chalmers’ second campaign followed the Disruption of 1843. One third of ministers, and half of the members, of the Church of Scotland left to form the Free Church of Scotland. Planning to outcompete the “Auld Kirk”, Chalmers knew that he would need plenty money. His traditional fundraising source – wealthy landowners, mostly still part of the establishment – was no longer available. So he went to the people, asking them for donations of sixpence per week. And the people, in faith, responded.

We do not need permission to plan for independence. I was very impressed to hear Graeme Blackett of the Bottom Line Scotland group talk about the importance of agency in Scottish society – an economist boldly claiming the language of psychology.

For Scotland to become independent, we need people, across Scotland, working together, creatively, for that to happen. We all have agency.

The question is simply we should use it. We can be imaginative, realising that independence will not happen until there is a clear majority supporting it.

Against arguments that all we need to do is put an attractive proposal to a referendum – what Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp has proposed about a case for independence based on a wellbeing economy – I agree with Noon that we first need to make Scotland ready for independence.

To do this, I propose the establishment of a National Governance Society of Scotland. Right-wing groups seem to be much better at this sort of thing with their secretively funded think tanks. I propose that we make the case for independence openly, with a member-based organisation, capable of showing how Scotland can be different by enabling participative decision making.

I first thought of this during the discussion about a de facto referendum. If negotiations with rUK are to be concluded successfully, the Scottish Government will need resources, which would not be available to a devolved government. The Governance Society would establish a Scottish secretariat, to enable the negotiations.

There is other work which it would be hard to do before independence, but which a society might take on – for example, the Scottish Currency Group has argued for years that one Scotland is far enough down the independence track, it will be possible to put together the arrangements for the establishment of a central bank. Again, this Governance Society would be well placed to do that.

To achieve independence, we need to show that Scotland will be different. A First Minister who allows space for something like this proposal would be doing that.

There are many possibilities for improving the quality of public decision making in Scotland, including reforms of local government, land ownership, and local taxation. That could provide an immediate focus for this Society.

It could even run citizens’ assemblies on contentious matters.

But this society must not be another talking shop.

To have authority, it would need to have a strong relationship with the Scottish Government. More importantly, and this is perhaps the intersection between Noon’s and Graeme Blackett’s ideas, it would need the political space created by a leader who is wise enough to realise that independence comes through us all having agency.