At the height of the wave of jubilant celebratory Yesness that swept Scotland before the referendum anything seemed possible. People were thinking for themselves, challenging everything. The marginalised and disaffected found a new voice to express decades of pent-up frustration. The basic realisation that we don’t get the government we elect, that we don’t run our own country, was charged with other questions about gender class and community, about the military and banks and business. It was joyous chaos. Dissent was king.

People took to the streets in huge numbers for what seemed like one huge mutating rally. Activists subverted the familiar alter-globalisation slogan ‘another world is possible’ to ‘another Scotland is possible’. Now, though, I’m not so sure.

What seemed best about the Yes movement’s openness, diversity and free thinking now seems to be being corralled into a stupefying dead-certainty. An air of negativity hangs over much of the remnant movement. Critical voices, dissenters and those of us deviating from the party line are dismissed as heretics and 'splitters'. Even to mention the Greens and RISE can mean being monstered by a fragile minority suffering from an unhealthy obsession with 'SNP 1 &2’ - both votes for the SNP at the Holyrood 2016 election - as if it is a panacea for all our woes.

To challenge this orthodoxy marks you down as a traitor and a likely Unionist stooge. Few seem capable of taking on board that a new landscape might include new parties. Shouting down those who don’t share their singular vision is about as far from the spirit of the indyref as you can get.

Never mind the complete absence of a culture of self-criticism, never mind the lack of any reflection on what went wrong - there’s just a lot of hauntingly stupid faith politics.

As one writer commented about the hostility to RISE and the Greens: “I don’t like being told I’m damaging indy for defending democracy."

This was perhaps to be expected. We’ve shifted from a mass movement focused on a single point in time and a binary question. Now we’re mired in the messy business of election and party politics.

However, our ‘democratic revolution’ hasn’t been cancelled. We need to recreate the sort of hugely diverse and vibrant movement we made before where rules were cast aside and leadership was for everybody because no one single party can bring about this level of change. A multi-dimensional united front for independence would be an asset to a renewed movement for self-determination.

The saddest thing about the hyper-cautious, conservative nationalist tone that is in the air - is that there is no need for it. The SNP would have to do something tremendously stupid to throw away the sort of poll lead and approval ratings they currently hold to lose a majority in Holyrood this year. It’s not going to happen. Ruth Davidson is managing a failed political project - the Scottish Conservatives - into a comfortable grave. The Anglo-British nationalism that is about to snarl into life during the European referendum will do little to endear her party to the electorate, other than to engage the UKIP fringe in some xenophobic tub-thumping. Nor are Labour under Kezia Dugdale likely to mount any convincing political challenge any time soon. They are in disarray and have none of the charge and zeal that at least the Corbynista brigade bring to the party south of the border. Labour is the Marie Celeste of Scottish politics.

So what explains this deep-seated uncertainty - this lack of confidence?

Perhaps it’s the residual damage of the referendum campaign which has been left unexamined. Perhaps it’s just the inevitable casualty of a movement becoming a party and the subsequent loss of vitality on the way.

But there’s room for optimism even in this long dark winter. There’s scope for a pro-indy consensus at Holyrood.

If a new pro-indy majority emerges at Holyrood it can start by beginning to map-out some responses to the problems that beset us today - austerity, job insecurity, zero hours contracts, low pay, the housing crisis, climate change. It could start by responding to the disastrous role played by Amber Rudd in decimating our renewable sector. It could coalesce around a programme for affordable sustainable homes and it could reinvigorate the key environmental goals and begin to make a meaningful transition to a low-carbon economy. If the oil industry is failing then the alternative opportunity to invest in future-focused technologies and build a social infrastructure that transcends this experience of precariousness in housing, work and ecology is clear. What better platform could you have for building the case for independence than proving that you could begin to transform the country in a way that addresses the practical needs of the people? There’s an unsettled will. Independence, like devolution, is a process not an event. Another Scotland is still possible – but it needs solidarity before and innovation after the Holyrood elections.