I’M in the office thinking about Alex Salmond and his impact.

I wrote this on the day he passed: “Hellish news. Like so many other things in life, we didn’t know how good he was until he left us. A Scottish titan who did more than anyone to bring the normality of self-determination from the margins to the mainstream – where it remains, as does the cause. We’re losing too many people who will never see it, so it falls on all of us to strive for the better, independent Scotland that we and those who come after us deserve. The Scottish nation has lost a great champion. We may never see his likes again”.

A week or so on, I wouldn’t change much, if any, of that. Goodness me, the constitution is still the dominant question and that’s largely down to Alex Salmond, and support for independence seems largely if not wholly decoupled from the performance of the party he twice led.

READ MORE: Convoy organised to sign Alex Salmond’s book of condolences

One thing struck me though. The Scottish media seemed largely unprepared for his death and didn’t seem to know how to react, and the obits seemed a bit rushed and cliched. For example, Salmond was usually described as “divisive”. Generally, that description when applied to politics or politicians never sits well with me. I mean, the voting chambers in Westminster are called the division lobbies. That’s the whole point of it. You pick a side.

When it comes to Alex Salmond, he wasn’t so much divisive as actually unusually collegiate and consensus-seeking. Ten years on from the first independence referendum, it’s worth reflecting that what Salmond was actually offering in 2014 – a shared currency, retaining the head of state – wasn’t that far removed from the kind of devomax that was hurriedly offered by Gordon Brown et al when Yes went ahead in the polls just before the vote. It’s hard to imagine any Scottish politician today being able to negotiate a fresh plebiscite on terms broadly suitable to all.

It’s also a sobering thought that actually most of the big achievements of the SNP happened during the Salmond leadership. You might even say that his building of the party was so impressive that it took those that followed him a decade to finally dismantle it.

READ MORE: Scottish Government offered to pay to repatriate Alex Salmond's body

But I also think about the intangibles. He made Scotland believe that it was already in the early days of a better nation. I believe he would have given Starmer’s “nations and regions” nonsense the shortest of shrifts, and instead we have the current lot taking selfies and looking far too happy to be there.

I have no doubt that Alex Salmond was deeply committed to Scotland’s independence. But I have serious doubts that this lot are. Winnie Ewing once said she was going to Westminster to settle up, not settle down. The successors to Alex seem awfy comfy, happy enough to exist within the straitjacket of a constitutional settlement designed to keep us from becoming the best versions of ourselves. With Alex’s passing, it feels like another exit lane has been passed and we’re running out of road.

He shares a birthday – Hogmanay – with another Alex – the great Ferguson who, like Salmond, left office about a decade ago. The SNP – and Scotland – look at lot like post-Fergie Manchester United. A succession of leaders who cannot compare. A lack of vision and identity. No plan. A crippling lack of self-belief and confidence.

I was watching a programme the other day about Manchester Utd’s extraordinary treble season of 1999. Fergie was reflecting that a lot of his success in his career was down to his gambler’s instinct. “If you’re one nil down”, he said, “you change things. You take a chance. What’s the worst that can happen?”

It sometimes feels like Scotland needs someone to be bold, gallus. Someone brave enough to take a punt.

Someone like Alex Salmond. When will we see his likes again?

Alec Ross
Lochans, Wigtownshire