Ruth Davidson, it seems, is still encountering difficulties in coming to terms with the result of the first referendum on Scottish independence. She was one of the champions of the victorious No side in that campaign yet, more than 18 months later, like a Second World War Japanese soldier stranded on a remote Pacific island, she is still fighting the war.

There she was again during STV’s Holyrood leaders’ debate on Tuesday night summoning up the spectre of a second referendum when everyone else just wanted to talk about taxation and spending: the salient issues of this election.

“Why do you fear public opinion,” she asked Nicola Sturgeon as she accused the First Minister of failing to respect the result of the 2014 vote by launching a new drive for independence. Ms Davidson might well have asked that question of herself. She knows that by her endorsement of the Westminster Conservative government’s one-sided austerity measures what she has to say about the Scottish economy is deemed to be irrelevant to the vast swathe of voters who are directly or indirectly affected by her party’s priorities.

That only leaves her with the referendum issue and her increasingly desperate attempts still to be the champion of the Union a year and a half after her side won the debate.

So, let’s talk about the “public opinion” of which she deems Ms Sturgeon to be so contemptuous. In the two years before September, 2014 the Yes vote increased by around 50 per cent while the No vote collapsed to the point where Gordon Brown was disinterred to predict bad tidings for pensions and jobs if Scotland opted to pay for its own upkeep.

We were reminded of this in the week when Britain was revealed to be facing an £800 billion pension black hole and 15,000 jobs are being threatened in what remains of our steel industry. Eight months later, the public – 100,000 of whom had decided to join the only UK mainstream political party supporting Scottish independence – decided it wanted this same party to represent it at Westminster while forsaking all others.

Now, on the eve of the Holyrood election, that same party which is still seeking independence, is about to be returned with another thumping majority. Bolstered by such a continual and upwardly mobile trajectory in the Nationalist vote I’d be shouting about another independence referendum at every available opportunity. Ms Sturgeon, on the other hand, has opted to be much more circumspect than me. Instead, she chooses merely to talk about continuing to make the case for self-determination and about how the Scottish people must be the final arbiters in the process.

Of course, we know what Ms Davidson is driving at. Here she is again talking about Alex Salmond’s unwise “once in a generation” declaration when seeking to ramp up the stakes during the first referendum campaign. I have my own thoughts on why Mr Salmond, a man whose trumpet will never be blown by anyone else, insisted on making such a vainglorious pronouncement. Might it have been that he simply couldn’t stomach the prospect of independence being delivered by anyone other than him in his own lifetime?

In any case, Scotland’s ex-First Minister made his “once in a generation” claim during a referendum campaign in which his party was only one of many groups and organisations which contributed to the Yes campaign. These included the Greens, assorted Socialist alliances and a fair chunk of the Labour support in Scotland. He simply did not have a universal mandate to state that the independence referendum would be a once-in-a-generation event. In his book In Place of Failure (which should be a primer for the Yes campaign next time round) Jim Sillars points out tellingly: “There is no evidence of an input to the [SNP] White Paper from anyone outside the Scottish Government and its Fiscal Commission.”

So, what part of “respecting public opinion” then, does Ms Davidson have difficulty understanding? And why is she purporting to disdain the prospect of a second referendum campaign? For, with the possible exception of April 15, 1967 (being the date Scotland beat world champions England at Wembley) surely there was no better day to be Scottish than September 18.

Of all the generations that have come and gone since the Treaty of Union in 1707 this was the one chosen to fight the sacred fight for either Scottish independence or for the continuation of the British state as we know it. Even Unionists of my acquaintance, including the editor of a well-known right-wing publication, confessed they had never felt more alive and inspired than when covering that campaign. He observed what I had: the political awakening of a people who had finally had enough of having politics handed down to them, pre-packaged and pre-determined, by a tiny elite in Westminster, Holyrood and Tamany Hall.

Unlike the elections to those inaccessible chambers where very little changes this one, the Scottish independence referendum, had the potential to alter dramatically the course of British politics forever. Perhaps it’s the uncertainty and whiff of political cordite which causes a true-blue Tory, who is sworn to abjure all change, to pull the covers tightly over herself when the sun begins to set.

In the second leaders' debate in Edinburgh last week it was even possible to observe another positive legacy from the new politics born of the referendum. The two-hour sweep of the event was considered by some to be too long, but it showed us that each of the party leaders have upped their game, if you like. Ms Sturgeon, of course, has finessed her strategy and delivery in the crucible of First Minister’s Questions every week and in her experience of jousting with the giants of Westminster politics last year. The others though, especially Kezia Dugdale and Patrick Harvie of the Greens have risen to the challenge.

I’m still not convinced by the format of these occasions but the quality of dispute and the level of mutual respect among our leaders has increased significantly.

Another who was caught up in the maelstrom of the independence referendum and emerged fearful at what was happening around him was that fine Scottish historian and fervent Unionist Niall Ferguson. On a visit north two years ago he wrote of encountering two Scotlands: his Scotland which was “as proudly British as it is Scottish” and another one which “could not care less about Scotland’s past, except as something to be distorted for political ends. And this other Scotland is very, very noisy,” he groaned.

In confusion, of course, there is noise and unpredictability; ancient privileges may count for nothing and topple and fall. Well, Scotland is still very, very noisy and will become increasingly so all the way to another independence referendum.