It took devolution and a sort of proportional voting system to reveal the extent of support which our party could command. It was clear that we had come far in the 50 years or so of our effective existence, but we were still a long way from our objective. Four years later, by any electoral yardstick, our strength had diminished.

Could we have come further than we have? Sooner? And, if we could, then why had we not done so?

Questions like these give rise to fault-finding and exchange of blame. Frustrated people find imperfections in colleagues and in leaders who somehow have let the side down. "Bumbling old fearties" as one of The Proclaimers charged, had failed to grasp the opportunities which must surely have existed.

As one of those probably in the mind of Craig (Charlie?) I would go some way with his criticism. Failures and errors are not hard to detect over the years but a fair judgement requires us to give due weight to the difficulties under which we have all laboured.

In any conflict the result is determined partly by the defects of one side but also by the power and strength of the other. In our long years of struggle we faced no Walls of Jericho, ready to fall at the toot of a challenging trumpet. In our highly industrialised and urbanised society we faced social fortresses manned by forces encouraged by journalists, by clerics of both major denominations, and by teachers loyal to old party traditions.

We should accept that these forces, these foot-soldiers in Labour and Conservative armies, are not conscripts but volunteers. They are perfectly happy to campaign as their parties direct. They do not see us as liberators or emancipators, and they are more ready to repel than to receive our advances.

They have done their best to compel us to concede that there is in Scotland no genuine deep desire for independence. We have been perseveringly guilty of assuming, or purporting to believe, that our feelings are shared by those who remain outwith our ranks. On the contrary, they feel no such desperate yearning to see Scotland identified, recognised and free, as should inspire all of us.

I say "should inspire" rather than "inspires". Our party's name (though no section of the media in 70 years has noticed) is "National" party, not "Nationalist". The choice was deliberate. I used to believe and to argue that it was a wise choice. Then, probably. Now, I am not so sure. The name can allow colleagues, and in some cases prominent office-bearers, to make obvious their scorn, distaste and embarrassment in viewing the realities which the world calls "Nationalism". In a continent, and a world, full of recently liberated nations, it is hard to see why an independence party should be so verbally prissy.

We, the Scottish people, have a recognised habitation and have been present there for centuries. We have a collective memory, properly documented and recorded, and a cultural inheritance to which birth within our community gives access. We know all this, and we must surely sense its power, but we have not used that power. Nor will we, while embarrassed, afraid of ridicule, all too ready to placate opponents and curry their favour.

In our anxiety to avoid being caught with our hearts on our sleeves we divert attention, ours and others', away from the foundations of our case and move directly to causes which, while worthy enough, are merely symptomatic of our constitutional position. That is our own fault and from it other faults arise.