THERE was a point in the late summer of 2014 when it became almost an expectation among Scottish independence supporters that anyone whose priority was social justice would vote Yes. The Scottish Government’s White Paper listed a range of policies the then First Minister Alex Salmond said would address the “damage caused by the vast social disparities which have seen the UK become one of the most unequal societies in the developed world”.

So appealing was this pitch, with talk of abolishing hated Tory austerity along with Westminster’s welfare reforms and strong hints of generous spending on welfare and public services, that those on the Left who still harboured grave doubts about the achievability of it all, started to keep their heads down.

This values-based campaigning helped push support for Yes from somewhere around 35 per cent at the outset to 45 per cent on polling day. It was so much more engaging than the crucially important but dull disputes over currency and oil revenues that the No campaign kept banging on about.

It looks very much as though we will have a second independence referendum some time next year and it, too, will be about selling a vision. Once more, it is likely to be of a socially just Scotland uncoupled from an England that is drifting worryingly to the Right and intent on not-so-splendid isolation.

The problem the Yes campaign will face this time is that Scottish ministers have failed rather badly to meet some of their aspirations for tackling inequality in the here and now. Those “vast social disparities” have widened still further.

This week, the bad news has been about the growing difference in cancer survival rates between those living in the most and least deprived areas. Last week, it was about the wealthiest one per cent of Scots being richer than the bottom 50 per cent, with inequality having grown between 2012 and 2014.

The week before that, it was the Sutton Trust report on the growing attainment gap between bright children from wealthy backgrounds and bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Before that it was how cuts to part-time college places have made it harder for women with children to improve their education and training, and therefore access better jobs. Before that it was how the Scottish Government had missed its fuel poverty targets by a large margin. This is not all the Scottish Government’s fault. Some of these difficulties have been exacerbated by tight block grant arrangements arising from the austerity agenda of George Osborne, if you remember him. The Scottish Government has to its credit spent many millions of pounds mitigating the impact of the bedroom tax. Some of the problems are highly complex.

To improve cancer outcomes in deprived areas, for instance, a culture change is required so more people come forward for screening and promptly report new symptoms to their GP; that could take many years. Widening inequality, as ministers are never slow to point out, is a problem facing governments all over the world. It’s complex, in other words, and influenced by many factors, some of them global.

Yet after 10 years in charge, the SNP cannot escape its share of responsibility. Having made tackling social injustice her priority, there are things Nicola Sturgeon could do but chooses not to. Her Government could use its new fiscal powers more boldly to create a more progressive system and increase revenues for local services. It could give up its attachment to universal benefits like free bus travel for the over 60s. It could have chosen not to impose a council tax freeze for 10 years, which damaged the less well off more than the wealthy. It could choose not to insinuate that the Westminster Government is the root of the problem and that getting rid of if would make Scotland a much more equal place.

It was voters’ inability to believe the too-good-to-be-true pitch of the Yes campaign last time round that led many to vote against independence, in spite of the No side’s doom-mongering. They could see that, unless the economics were sound, their social justice aspirations would not be fulfilled; if the economy really suffered, the worst off would be worst hit.

Many of those No voters are open to persuasion, thanks to Brexit, but their bovine manure detectors will be on full alert. Both sides need to acknowledge that constitutional arrangements are only part of the story in tackling inequality; that difficult choices are necessary to tackle social injustice; and that it will take a long time. Unfortunately, the chances of having that sort of debate are somewhat slim.

If there is a referendum next year, voters will be faced with a fluid and complex situation, still not knowing the outcome of Brexit negotiations. What currency would an independent Scotland use? How long would Scotland take to regain EU membership and on what terms? What trading and border arrangements would exist between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK?

One can see how a simple, values-based Yes campaign could be effective, transcending all of the confusion. In a Western world dominated by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, Ms Sturgeon epitomises a decency and moral rectitude that is deeply reassuring.

But if she intends to head up a campaign that, like last time, paints a picture of a well-funded, socially just independent Scotland, she will have to explain in detail how that is to be achieved, given that the same aspiration has eluded her in government.

Last time around, talk of better funded public services went hand in hand with a commitment not to raise taxes against a forecast drop in oil revenues. That improbable message may not play so well this time; the battle-weary have a reputation for cynicism.

Ms Sturgeon came into politics to tackle social injustice. If she wins a second referendum on the back of a simplistic “vote independence for equality” message, she will need a plan to deliver or face the backlash. If she loses, she will probably feel honour-bound to resign. That would be a great pity for a politician whose prime motivation is tackling inequality. She’d leave having barely started the process.

The problem of inequality will have to be worked at, tirelessly, for years. It will take money, but also perseverance, determination and innovation and it will not be solved by a vote, whichever way it goes.