IT'S a big number, but also a big sign.
The SNP's growth from 25,000 to 100,000 members in the sixth months since the referendum is frankly remarkable.
A country will less than 9% of the UK's population is now home to its third biggest party.
Nicola Sturgeon has already held the largest political rally of modern times, drawing 12,000 to the SSE Hydro after becoming First Minister, and next week will hold her party's biggest conference.
Around 3000 delegates will converge in Glasgow for a pre-election rally likely to put the fear of God into the SNP's opponents.
The contrast with the LibDems in Aberdeen yesterday was cruel.
Barely 250 watched Willie Rennie make the astonishing claim that his party is poised to win on May 7.
At least, though, it was more than the 100 or so who saw the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, hold a "rally" the night before that was closer to a wake.
But what to make of the SNP's six figures?
We know from polls during the referendum that not all the party's members want independence.
So that cannot fully explain why it is doing so well in both membership and the polls.
Nor should other parties dismiss the surge as some sort of post-No spasm of anger and regret.
A wiser response would be to read the signals behind the number.
The SNP is popular because it is in tune with popular progressive sentiment and speaks its mind clearly.
During the referendum, voters saw it as a party of far more than the constitution, one that prioritised social justice and railed against austerity.
All parties condemn inequality, yet few speak out so forcefully on it as the SNP.
Instead, Labour and the Conservatives hide their intentions and bite their tongues.
The response of shadow chancellor Ed Balls to Wednesday's budget was symptomatic of this: asked what he would reverse, Balls said he wouldn't reverse anything.
When Labour is as timid as that, little wonder its supporters are turning away in despair.
The SNP's recruitment milestone shows voters appreciate straight talk.
If other parties tried it, they might even revive their fortunes too.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article