During the recent referendum campaign, the point was often made that it was a "once-in-a-generation" opportunity or, for people of a certain age, "once-in-a-lifetime".
Some of us are old enough to remember the 1979 referendum when the majority of votes cast were in favour of a Scottish Parliament. However, that Scottish Parliament never happened because the number of Yes voters did not constitute at least 40% of those eligible to vote. That was the wrecking amendment inserted by Labour MP George Cunningham during the passage of the Scotland Act 1978.
As a result, the Scottish Parliament was strangled at birth and Scotland had to suffer nearly two decades of Tory Government before they got another opportunity to vote for a Scottish Parliament in the 1997 referendum.
Will there be a similar time gap before another referendum can be held on Scottish independence ?
The result of the referendum means independence is off the immediate agenda, but it would be naive to imagine the issue dead and buried. Many of the 45% who voted Yes see the result as a deferment, not a defeat, and will continue to campaign for independence.
There is ample evidence that a majority of the younger generation voted Yes and, with support for independence at an all-time high, the momentum is with the Yes side. A swing of only 5% would achieve a Yes victory and even some Unionists fear that it's only a matter of time before Scotland becomes independent.
But how long is a matter of time? In the aftermath of September 18, some commentators suggest the people of Scotland are fed up with the independence issue and need another referendum like a hole in the head. We are told voters have referendum fatigue and anyone who even mentions the possibility of another referendum will get short shrift.
It may come as a surprise, then, to learn the recent Ipsos MORI poll for STV revealed that, regardless of circumstances, 58% would support another referendum in the next five years and nearly two-thirds would support another referendum in the next decade.
There could be public support for a referendum even sooner. The same poll indicates 53% would back an independence referendum if a Tory Government is elected at next year's General Election. That figure would rise to 55% if there was a vote for the UK to leave the EU in 2017. Neither of those scenarios is impossible, especially when we look at the rise of UKIP in England and the fall in Labour support in Scotland.
If Labour's misfortunes continue and dissatisfaction in Scotland about Westminster's failure to deliver a fairer society grows, the SNP may be tempted to include in their 2016 manifesto a commitment to a fresh referendum. They could then claim a mandate if they won another overall majority in the Scottish Parliament.
The way the Unionist parties handle the report of Lord Smith's Commission is also crucial. Those No voters who were persuaded by The Vow that extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament would be delivered will feel angry and let down if those powers do not materialise in the timescale promised. If what eventually emerges is something as insipid as the Calman proposals, it will almost certainly increase public demand for another referendum.
Sometimes people learn from experience, though that experience can be bitter. Many who voted No in the 1979 referendum changed their minds during 18 years of unpopular Tory policies such as the poll tax, which would never have seen the light of day if the Scottish Parliament had existed.
It was tragic that they had to wait 18 years before getting another chance to vote Yes.
History has a habit of repeating itself but, after this year's referendum, another chance may come sooner rather than later.
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