A WEEK, as Harold Wilson once observed, is a long time in politics and the last few days have certainly proved him right.

However, you need to look at a much longer period to get an accurate perspective on Scotland’s political progress – a fact that Unionist politicians and their media fans would do well to remember.

The SNP aren’t an old party and their progress has been in fits and starts. Of the 14 leaders that have taken the reins since its foundation in 1934, I have known eight of them – though I only remember meeting Arthur Donaldson once.

However, over the past quarter-century as the SNP have come to dominate the Scottish political scene, one thing has been a constant.

That is the gleeful prediction of imminent doom for the independence campaign, particularly when it changes leaders, and – on every occasion – it soon turned out to be Unionist turkeys cheering on an early Christmas.

I had some involvement in the leadership changes of 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2014 – and I clearly recall Gordon Wilson succeeding Billy Wolfe in 1979, though my role then – as secretary of the Uist Branch – didn’t exactly give me a ringside seat.

The 2004 contest was the first one in which every SNP member got a vote and it is to John Swinney’s credit that he forced that change through, as he faced down a direct challenge to his own incumbency in 2003 from some party figures defending an indefensible delegate voting system which excluded the wider membership.

This system was probably best illustrated in the 2003 ballot, with only 688 votes cast though the party membership that was then probably at around 10,000.

But that was more than the delegate vote in 1990 when Alex Salmond beat Margaret Ewing by 486 to 186. Though when he ran again in 2004, every member could participate. He triumphed with 4952 votes compared to 953 for Roseanna Cunningham, the then deputy leader, and a mere 631 for me.

Of course, early on in that contest, Alex had issued what is called in American politics a Shermanesque statement. The term comes from the denial first articulated by the US Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman in 1884 who responded when being talked of as a presidential candidate: “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.”

Nonetheless, within weeks, Alex had done a U-turn and cruised to victory with Nicola as his running mate for deputy leader.

The nomination threshold for standing in 2004 required support from 100 members from no less than 20 branches and I recall it was – for me at least – a bit of a logistical nightmare to achieve.

It is the same threshold this time around, but if it had been uprated to take account of actual SNP membership now, it would be set at a minimum of 1000. That fact alone should give those predicting the SNP’s demise pause for thought.

Taking the longer view between those earlier leadership elections and that which will take place over the next few weeks – providing there is more than one nominated candidate – it is clear that the entire landscape of Scottish politics has changed. For example, 19 years ago, just 6500 people chose the leader of what was an opposition party in the Scottish Parliament that was still only polling at around 20%.

In the coming month – even allowing for something less than a 100% turnout – well over 10 times that number will choose the person to be nominated by the governing parties as Scotland’s First Minister. They will come from every part of the country – and will in every way reflect the rich diversity of this nation now.

In contrast, it was estimated that there were less than 8000 Tory members in Scotland who could participate in their leadership ballot last summer and studies suggested that they were overwhelmingly older, less diverse and much wealthier than the average Scottish citizen.

Meanwhile, Labour have only 16,000 or so members in Scotland, and the last figure for the LibDems from back in December 2020 indicated that they were about a quarter of that size.

Those changes of course are neither immutable nor irreversible.

Whoever becomes the new SNP leader and the new first minister will have to earn the confidence of the people of his or her party and his or her country. They will have a very hard act to follow, and inevitably, it will take time for them to become known and trusted.

That is why the contest needs to be as open and constructive as possible. It must avoid getting bogged down in process arguments (which is what Westminster wants to make independence all about) or internal disputes and instead allow the candidates to articulate their visions of what independence means, and how it will – in detail – improve the lives and life chances of everyone in Scotland.

Independence is much more about the what than the how, and the whole Yes movement needs to take that on board and change the narrative from a fearful “what if” to one of definite, confident and deliverable advantage and prosperity – both individual and collective. Doing so with grace, humour and respect is also not only desirable – it is essential.

At the end of March, a new leader – political and national – will come into office in circumstances vastly more favourable than could have been imagined 20 years ago and particularly on the matter of independence.

Nicola is right to say that she has presided over a period in which a natural majority for indy has emerged but has not yet been entrenched. That natural majority can be seen in the facts of political life in Scotland today, in polls and in party membership and by recalling the distance we have travelled.

Entrenching it means converting those things into a positive, consistent and declared national will to rejoin the EU and the world. And then finishing the job by doing so.