So we have emerged more or less unscathed from the Conference (Aberdeen April 2004) which our various ill-wishers were predicting would be for us some sort of calamity. In fact with the Party's leadership clearly victorious over its critics, the sniping observers have suddenly gone awful quiet over there.

Mind you, we do seem able to make trouble for ourselves and we must now hope that the reforms to our procedures and structures will cut down the number of self-inflicted wounds in the future.

Looking back on some unpleasant moments one could make a good case for arguing that many of them had been caused by our refusal to define with clarity just what we thought the Party was. When you think about it, our purpose is to encourage Scots to vote to take their country out of the existing Union, and as aims go, they don't come more revolutionary than that. But anyone with any political sense knows that it helps us to succeed if we present our purpose as the natural thing in the world. People respond well to the familiar and it is in our best interests to reassure rather than inflame.

However, in such tranquil harmony we have sometimes found that we are misunderstanding one another. For instance I assumed that we all appreciated that we were driven by our convictions to present ourselves as adversaries of the British state. As this was a thoroughly extreme stance I presumed that we would all feel not just loyalty but affection and reverence for the Party whose aim was to re-create political Scotland. I did not appreciate that the kind of unity which I took for granted was hardly even contemplated by many colleagues. This misunderstanding led me into my worst moments within the Party.

When the Election Committee had to exercise its powers to select candidates on behalf of the Party, I, as its Convener, assumed that all involved - committee members, constituency and  branch officials and aspirants alike - would put the interests of the Party above all personal prefences. That turned out to be a thoroughly mistaken expectation. Others followed, and I came to grieve often over our ability to divide ourselves, usually pointlessly and needlessly. The young were encouraged to reject the old and vice versa. When devolution was first mooted, those who wished to obstruct it preached the virtues of sucession to Orkney and Shetland, and some Party colleagues were not above showing some hope that Grampian Region might be justified in following. Wheels turn, and now we hear from the once-feared Central Belt that they in turn fear the influence of the North East.

In the past few years I have taken what opportunities I have had to plead with all members that they must see themselves as Scots, and must regard ancestral home or current residence ae equally accidental. The Party must never allow itself to be seen as an instrument whereby one region seeks or gains advantage over another. Stop in your tracks if you find yourself opposing a colleague because you differ in place of birth, place of residence, generation or gender.

We have all more than enough to do to carry on our Party's work wherever we are and by whatever means lie within our abilities. The Conference has given us the chance for a fresh start and a more disciplined look at ourselves. What fools we we will be if we let the chance pass.