Those of us who co-founded Women for Independence over two-and-a-half years ago might have imagined a bit of a rest after the referendum.
It's not going to happen. Already, our first post-referendum meeting on October 4 is overbooked. We're seeking a bigger venue.
Loading article content
Despite the result, WFI has been an incredible success. We have become a national network of thousands of women and more than 40 local groups. We have breadth and depth. Many talented, articulate, strong, determined women have found that the space provided by WFI has helped them grow even stronger. We could supply enough talented public speakers to keep after-dinner clubs occupied for a couple of years.
The hope of independence did this. Women saw the point of getting involved. On their terms. All future democratic processes in Scotland won't be democratic unless women are involved.
The No campaign had nothing like us. We are a real, organic, bustling, powerful movement. They had pop-up stands. But we lost, didn't we?
We did. But I think the conservative No campaign, fronted by Labour, has the bigger headache this morning. The detailed analysis of the demography of the vote and the motivations for voting must make sobering reading. Independence is supported by a majority of the population under 55, including a majority among women.
WFI formed with the intention of tackling the well-known gender gap in support for independence.
There is no gender gap in the under 55s. Longer-living older women (with stupendous exceptions), especially the comfortable, affluent ones, weren't inspired by the things motivating the vibrant Yes movement. Reasons given for voting Yes were all about democracy, vision, fairness and equality. For everyone. For future generations.
No voters were, generally, concerned about their pensions and short-term financial security.
The patterns are unmistakeable. Younger people voted Yes. Progressive people voted Yes. Those who have borne the brunt of free-market austerity voted Yes.
Conservative people voted No. Frightened people voted No. Folk who believed the "timetable for more powers" voted No. Downright reactionaries voted No.
The 45% Yes-voting population are the future. The No vote represent the past. As Bob Dylan sang in the 1960s anthem, The Times They Are A-Changing: "Your old road is rapidly ageing."
Urban working-class people, the excluded, the disenfranchised, voted Yes. Labour heartlands voted Yes. Every single constituency in Glasgow voted Yes. Oh, what a sight at the Glasgow count: Labour being patted on the back and cheered by the Britannica party - an offshoot of the BNP.
There was a No vote that wanted to be Yes. But the No campaign, fronted by Brown and Darling, with Cameron and Osborne lurking in the shadows pulling the strings, cynically pushed the buttons of fear and insecurity. In the most grimly ironic moments of the campaign, some of those responsible for turning modern Iraq into a cauldron of death and destruction pontificated about risk and recklessness.
The abominable No-men wanted folk feart, confused and in their boxes. They especially liked folk who don't use social media. They pulled out of numerous debates, forcing organisations keen to maintain neutrality to cancel. They allowed misinformation to flourish like weeds, including claims that eastern European migrants would face deportation with independence.
Labour fronted this campaign for the UK establishment. They beamed when oil barons and supermarket tycoons warned of disappearing resources and soaring prices. As one Channel 4 News journalist tweeted: "Was the independence campaign a long political suicide note for Scottish Labour?"
The ambition of full national independence will not go away. Not because political types refuse to let it go, but because the 45% who voted Yes, in the most politicised times of my life, won't let it go. And they may well be joined in the near future by many who voted No.
The democratic revival and people-power the referendum spawned won't entertain the suits deciding things behind closed doors. Without the participation of the people in the process of democratic renewal, there will be no enduring constitutional settlement.
Women for Independence won't be disappearing to drink tea and eat cereal. If the Westminster parties are serious about embracing people power, we'll be included in any discussions and negotiations, along with the vast array of grass-roots networks involved in Yes. If there are grass-roots No organisations, they should also be involved.
On October 4, our packed meeting, wherever it can be accommodated, will decide where we go from here. Deliberately, we facilitated an autonomous network of autonomous groups and autonomous women.
In direct contrast to traditional, hierarchical, centralised political party ways of doing things, we didn't say: "This is what we think, agree with us and come join us." It certainly worked.
No doubt we'll reflect on the last two-and-a-half years, what we did well, what we could have done better. We'll discuss the Yes movement as a whole, how the country has changed, and where the country is going.
We will discuss what we are, who we are, and what and who we want to be. There will be many different views. That is wonderful. The days of homogeneity are over.
We will celebrate. I'm not as gutted as I'd have imagined prior to the result. The winds of change are still blowing. The masses are stirred. And the women have risen.
We're confident, capable and co-ordinated. We have commanded social media. We have international friends keen to learn from us.
We are here. And we're not going away.