The National Party of Scotland had, from its formation in 1928, a fully coherent political programme, and had required its members to withdraw from any other party. Further, the new party committed itself to an election-fighting strategy, challenging the British political parties in the most unambiguous fashion possible.

  However, if the Party’s influence was to increase, its membership had to grow. Those who had not been sufficiently interested to join the Party or its earlier component groups had now to be persuaded to do so. Some came quite quickly and willingly but others required concessions and acceptance of their various conditions before consenting to become members.

  Within the NPS many feared that offering these concessions or accepting these conditions would involve abandoning or at least modifying their fundamental principles. So as time passed principles were questioned, debated, eroded, abandoned, restored and then questioned all over again. Some argued in favour of the widest possible membership. Others responded that the wider the membership the shallower would be the average commitment and the worth of the cause itself would be diminished. Consensus, seen as a virtue by some, was seen by others as a flabby dodging of decision and choice.

  Most active in pursuing growth and working to bring about the decisions which would encourage it was the NPS Secretary, John MacCormick. His was the most busy and active mind involved in these early days, and he had won the good opinion of many prominent public personalities. He now used his reputation to attract the support of people whose public identification as Home Rule supporters would strengthen the Party and impress and encourage others to follow.

  Unfortunately some of the key people in MacCormick’s sights were, unknown to him, less than sincere. This we now know thanks to the researches of Richard Finlay (Independent and Free. John Donald. 1994) They resented the NPS which had usurped the leadership which some felt should have been theirs. Instead of co-operation they threatened competition, forming the rival Scottish Party.

  Among their number were several prominent Press personalities and it was probably they who peddled vigorously the notion that the Scottish Party were “moderates” and therefore much to be preferred to the “extremists” of the NPS.

  Feeling now a degree of urgency, MacCormick sought reconciliation and achieved it in time to have the two parties co-operate in fighting a by-election in Kilmarnock. Shortly thereafter their union was made permanent in their agreement to form the Scottish National Party.

  Nationalists had thus encountered for the first time an experience which has recurred on many occasions in subsequent years. The Scottish Party, though supported by little more than a comparative handful of members, demanded and secured parity in the number of  Party offices held.

  Nationalist public statements now revealed more tenderness in relation to England, the Empire and the monarchy than had been customary from the NPS.

  From these events we should learn to let time test the sincerity of support. When people who have shown little previous regard for us or our cause come to claim to seek independence, most of them are lying. Or if not, they are saying in effect, “Well, yes. But I want to wait until my more urgent priorities are attended to, and I will insist that you wait too.”