Hanging on my wall is a brave manifesto proclaiming the virtues of independence. Nationalism and freedom, it says, go together. A country that is in thrall to a larger power will never realise its full potential. “In certain quarters, this policy is said to be revolutionary in its intention, narrow in outlook and likely to be dangerous in practice,” it runs. “May I say that it is only revolutionary in its hope of regaining that nationalism which is synonymous with boldness, vigour and strength . . .”

A Churchillian proclamation? An anti-European Tory diatribe? No — it was penned, more in hope than expectation, by my father in 1933, when he fought a romantic but doomed campaign on behalf of a movement known then as the National Party of Scotland. In the famous by-election of East Fife (attended throughout by Lord Beaverbrook, fielding his own candidate) the young Eric Linklater lost his deposit; or rather it was stolen by his agent before it could be deposited, thus undermining his prospects. Still, all was not entirely lost — the by-election spawned a rattling good novel.

This week, the leader of the present Scottish National Party will launch another bid for independence, with words that may not be quite as eloquent but will contain much the same sentiments. Alex Salmond will tell his supporters at the SNP’s annual conference that the climate is ripe for his nation to claim its rightful inheritance; that breaking with Westminster is the only way to reinvigorate the economy; that a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland is the first step towards a brave new future.

But what is this? “The [SNP] government also recognises that there are a range of views on Scotland’s constitutional future other than independence and that these are represented in the Scottish Parliament. The National Conversation invites all shades of opinion to contribute to the constitutional debate, so that the people of Scotland can make an informed decision on their future.”

I doubt if the voters of East Fife would have thrilled to this kind of talk. A range of views? Conversations? Informed decisions? Whatever happened to Braveheart?

What happened to Braveheart is that it was binned. The words above appear on the SNP’s website, inviting the people of Scotland to join in a “national conversation” about the country’s future. The days when SNP conferences were attended by ancient figures in faded kilts and hairy sporrans are long gone. Instead, in a country confronting its survival in a recession, its financial sector shedding jobs by the thousand, its two great banks brought to their knees, a new reality has kicked in.

Over the past few months, the view has been advanced of a very different kind of independence — a less threatening variety; one that sees a future shared with the rest of the UK in a relationship described as a “social union”. There is not much talk these days of customs posts or passports. Instead, the view has been advanced of a Scottish nation that works within a UK foreign policy, sharing embassies and negotiating agreements alongside British civil servants. “The building of alliances and smarter deployment of resources better focused on Scotland’s needs, rather than the projection of power and status, would be key to representing Scottish interests internationally,” says a long paper on the party’s current position.

This shared arrangement was taken a step farther this week — and a very muddled step it was — when a new defence policy was set out. The SNP suggested that British bases could continue to exist on Scottish soil, though Trident would have to go, while the nation would pick and choose the conflicts it wanted to be involved in. Somehow, Scotland could stay outside Nato and throw out nuclear submarines, while continuing to be part of a UK defence force.

It’s loopy, of course, but the new approach to independence is not. Mr Salmond knows that the mood of the country is not well disposed to bold adventures. No more than a third of Scots want independence, and that percentage shows no sign of rising. Yesterday, remarkably, the man once regarded as the SNP’s greatest electoral asset announced that he would be taking a low profile in the Glasgow North East by-election. Mr Salmond conceded that his presence would not greatly aid the party in its efforts to dislodge Labour from the newly ennobled Lord Martin of Springburn’s former seat.

This, then, is the party that seeks to present itself as the emblem of an independent Scotland — one that recognises that its leader may be just a little too robust for the middle-class majority of his country, that tailors its ambitions to the global realities of the modern world and proposes a close alliance to the old enemy, under the sheltering umbrella of a United Kingdom.

It is a far cry from 1933, but it is a great deal more rational. If the SNP could now address itself to the tired state of the economy, throw its weight behind the old Scottish notions of self-sufficiency and free enterprise, begin the reforms of an education system that is in serious decline, and cut back on the dead weight of its public sector, it might, just possibly, begin to persuade the Scottish people that nationalism is no longer narrow in outlook and dangerous in practice.

Times Recommends

• Snow brings out the inner Tory in all of us
• Hail, Britain’s Indiana Jones of the Amazon
• Hewitt and Hoon – two rabbits, one hat