We must look at mistakes of the past to get second indyref

Even that process has recaptured some of that spirit, in that independence is now being widely discussed outside the Yes movement. This is a good thing and we need to encourage that to continue and spread.

On Tuesday, I attended The National’s anniversary showing of Jane McAllister’s film To See Ourselves, a hilarious, heartbreaking, depressing but ultimately uplifting account of the referendum campaign through the focus of its effect on one family, and in particular one inspiring man.

The following night I spoke at Believe in Scotland’s independence rally outside the Scottish Parliament alongside other campaigners, singers and supporters.

READ MORE: Yes activists on how they feel about independence 10 years after vote

Everyone who attended those events or others like them will have their own memories, reactions and experiences. Personally, I always find engaging in the independence debate an inspiring experience.

The most amazing aspect of the run-up to the referendum was the way politics escaped its bubble and was suddenly everywhere. We all had opinions and were eager to share them, mostly in respectful and thoughtful ways. If they do nothing else, anniversaries like this week’s offer an opportunity to reassess a profound experience, take stock of what it meant, throw new light on where we went and what’s changed.

Clearly, we are a very long way from 2014. The Yes movement and Yes political parties have had their problems, fractures and schisms have appeared. And more significantly, we now know all too clearly the consequences of the No vote.

We called out Better Together for scaremongering.

Now we know the extent. We called out the lies. Now we know that it wasn’t a Yes vote that would pull us out of Europe. It was them. It wasn’t a Yes vote that would impoverish us. It was staying with them.

So to some extent I take issue with those such as Stephen Flynn who warn against concentrating on the past because it might deflect us from concentrating on the future. The lessons of the past can prepare us for the future. Lessons such as properly analysing what failed to win the day in 2014. We don’t need to be told that we lost. We all live with the consequences of that failure every day.

(Image: NQ) Back in the day I expected the SNP to present rigorous analysis of the arguments – on both sides – which worked and which failed to land. It never came.

Flynn is right to say, as he did in The National earlier this week, that we have all “spent hours discussing where it all went wrong”. We have indeed. There was no shortage of theories. It was the fear over pensions. It was the Vow. It wasn’t the Vow. It was a failure of courage. It was the overwhelmingly negative media. It was the propaganda of the BBC (and yes, two can play at that game Douglas Fraser).

And yes we’re still weighing up those reasons. Why? Because there is no evidence to show the different impacts. We have nothing to rely on apart from out gut and that isn’t enough.

So Flynn has a point in saying that the causes of our failure are not as important as what happens next. It’s just that the reasons we failed should guide us in framing our future. It would have been helpful if the SNP had done some research to inform our decisions.

There is no shortage of voices constantly reminding us that we lost the referendum vote. Every time we make the case for independence some Unionist politician pops up to tell us. We don’t need SNP politicians adding their voice to the “You’ve had your vote” chorus.

We get it.

We don’t need SNP politicians telling us “now is not the time”. It’s NOT an optimistic argument that we will win independence at some unspecified point “in the years to come”. It’s NOT an optimistic message that our campaign for independence will be very hard and we should perhaps lower our expectations.

We vote for SNP politicians to move us closer to independence not to tell us to be patient. We want them to devise new ways of convincing Scotland of the value of independence. I would have thought the General Election result would have concentrated minds on the task ahead, instead of simply watching the independence tide “come in and out”.

READ MORE: Scottish currency conference 'plan Yes movement waited 10 years for'

One of the strangest aspects of this anniversary for me is that I’ve found myself arguing a case I’ve never supported before. I’ve generally been supportive of a more softly, softly approach. I’ve generally supported the notion that a more thoughtful approach would build support for the cause.

I’ve accepted that taking a constructive attitude, that taking the accepted legal route by, for example, seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court, would build international support for our cause.

I believed that taking these steps would allow us to say to Westminster: “We’ve been reasonable. We have done what you required of us. We have been grown up and adult. You on the other hand have denied us the democratic right to decide our own future. You on the other hand have ignored our democratically expressed opinions – for example our desire to stay in Europe – and refused any form of compromise which would have acknowledged them.”

In other words there surely had to come a point when we used the political currency which our patience had built up.

Instead, we’ve accepted the Supreme Court decision. Instead, we’ve simply accepted that Westminster has to right to “grant” us a referendum and therefore the right to refuse it. Now we’re being urged not to want a referendum at all but to simply wait for the “settled will” of the Scottish people to make itself known in some vague, unspecified way.

Opinion polls? Really? The opinion polls when the referendum was agreed in 2012 put support for independence at less than 30%. The nature of the debate, the atmosphere of hope and ambition, the serious nature of the arguments all pushed that support up. Not high enough but higher than many expected.

The Yes movement and the modern independence campaign have many strands. Believe in Scotland’s plans for a Scottish Citizens Convention could spark an inspirational national conversation and change minds. Its harnessing of Scottish culture to add emotional impact and fun to its activities is a smart move. But there has to be an endpoint. The campaign has to build to something. There has to be a vote.

Otherwise, how will we know when we have won? When Westminster simply throws in the towel? How likely is that? If we give Westminster the power to deny us a vote, it will use it. The more likely we at to win, the less likely the UK is to “allow” it. We are imprisoned in this union but there is a key in the lock. At some point, surely, we have to use it.

John Swinney has been criticised in some quarters as failing to provide inspirational leadership but his speech at the SNP’s only event to mark the anniversary of the indyref made some good points.

YES, independence activists have a responsibility to “get out there” and win the arguments. YES, the SNP must provide the means and the opportunity for the pro-independence argument to prevail. YES, the SNP should recapture the sense of hope, optimism and possibility that was prevalent in 2014.

But the first of those calls is taken up by grassroots activists every week throughout the country. The second is self-evident but what does it actually mean?

And the sense of hope and optimism mentioned in the third was created in response to a vote being called. Without a vote being called, without a mechanism for actually achieving independence it’s all just talk and waiting.

At the National’s anniversary event on Tuesday, SNP depute leader Keith Brown said that Westminster would never again pass a section 30 order, which paved the way for the first referendum.

He said the movement needs to “take the matter into our own hands”. By that he appears to mean we need to continue making and winning the argument. Brown said: “We have to demonstrate the support of the people in Scotland, so it makes it unanswerable because eventually, Scotland is not going to become independent without a referendum.”

BUT if Scotland will not win independence without a referendum and Westminster will never agree to a referendum, where do we go from there? I’m sorry but we’ve been making and winning the argument for 10 years.

The Better Together arguments for remaining in the Union have been shown to be empty and built on lies. Isn’t it possible that the Scottish people are not unconvinced about independence itself but unconvinced by the means by which we can achieve it? And if we can’t achieve it what’s the point of wasting good brain cells thinking about it?

We need a vote. Only a vote will focus people’s minds on the issue. Without it, everything is theoretical. If Westminster blocks a vote we have to “take matters into our own hands” and hold it ourselves. There’s no other logical answer. It’s the only way to break the stalemate which is atrophying our campaign.

Without it, devolution will be dismantled because “we can’t afford it”. Without it, our distinctive Scottish policies such as free tuition fees will be taken from us. Without it, the benefits of our renewable energy will be stolen from us, just as the benefits of oil and gas were stolen from us.

Without it we will be plunged ever further into poverty while our Prime Minister’s promises of change apply only to his family’s wardrobe, swelled by more gifts from his rich friends. We need a vote.