We owe it to ourselves to think through our arguments on independence A NUMBER of years ago at an SNP branch meeting, the late and much missed Dr Allan Macartney suggested that it could be illuminating to get members at all levels to describe how they came to support the SNP and Scottish independence. He thought it would be good to understand how people from a wide variety of backgrounds had ­arrived at a shared political position, and how some of their stories might resonate ­beyond SNP ranks. Readers involved in politics, regardless of party, will appreciate the point that this was actually one of the more interesting things to be discussed at a branch meeting, and it stuck in my mind. As we move towards a referendum on independence in autumn 2014, the idea came back to me in a different context. As a nation, we are going to make the biggest decision in our history in two years" time. But for many of us, our position will be based on views formed years, even decades, ago. In that regard, the ­people who will be 16 or 17 by the time of the referendum may have the advantage on the rest of us, in that they will be reaching their conclusions on whether they vote Yes or No at the same time as they are developing their wider opinions about the society they have grown up in. For those of us whose own views were formed when we were around that age, perhaps we owe it to ourselves, as well as to the wider debate, to reflect on our position and the reasons for it. In my own case, I have a confession to make on what is the final day of SNP conference. In as much as I thought about politics when growing up (which I'd like to assure readers, I hardly ever did) I didn't have a lot of time for the SNP or the idea of an independent Scotland. I have a hazy memory of being one of the few kids in my primary class in the 1970s not to put my hand up for the SNP when the teacher asked how we might vote. And I remember much more clearly feeling very proud on reaching the age of 18 to cast my vote for Labour in elections to the old regional councils in 1986. So what changed? In my own case, it was as much about personal as political development, and coming to conclusions about things based on my own experiences and observations, rather than sticking to positions inherited from past generations, important though these were (and still are) to me. Going to university was probably the catalyst, as it is for many young folk in working out their view of the world. Three things stand out at that time. First, a university friend, who appeared to be perfectly normal and intelligent, actually supported the SNP and an independent Scotland. It came as something of a shock. Europe was important, and it was he who first put into my head the idea that independence could be a progressive rather than a retrograde step, by enabling Scotland and England to maintain all the bonds important to us, but on the basis of an equal relationship within the wider European forum. Second, my first summer job was as a grousebeater in the wonderful glens of Highland Perthshire - something I'd recommend to anyone, apart from the squeamish. It opened up to me the scale and variety of our supposedly small nation, and convinced me that, at the very least, such a country, rich in ­assets, required a parliament to ensure that the land benefits all of the people - and sustains living communities. A powerful illustration of the need for that parliament to have the powers of independence was - appropriately enough, as we look forward to 2014 - the 1986 Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh. A majority of Commonwealth countries boycotted Scotland's Games - largely African, Asian and Caribbean nations - because of Margaret Thatcher's soft approach to South Africa's apartheid regime, and refusal to implement meaningful sanctions. Scotland was, and is, independently represented in the Commonwealth Games. And yet, due to a lack of political power, Scotland was unable to contribute to the international struggle against apartheid - one of the biggest moral issues of that generation - as much as I was sure most people here wanted to. And to add insult to injury, the Edinburgh Games were spoiled by being tarred with the brush of a Thatcher government, which the vast majority of people in Scotland opposed. That was then - and in this area, and many other ways, the world has changed for the better. In the next two years it is right and important that we promote our views. We need to hear the clash of ideas and the din of debate. But in our quieter moments, we might all want to reflect on how we have arrived at these views - and how they relate to the Scotland and the world we have now, and wish to see in the future. Who knows? We may learn something about our country - and a little more about ourselves and each other.  Kevin Pringle is the SNP's strategic and communications director