 The ComRes poll results which, across the UK, found a six-point increase in those for independence to 39%, while those opposed fell to 38%, is a cheery boost for the SNP as their conference approaches.  Even so, a quick squint at the numbers suggests alex Salmond should probably wait a bit before dashing off a letter to the Holy Father along the lines of the celebrated one sent almost 700 years ago. The Declaration of arbroath could claim that  as long as but one hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under the dominion of the English .  The total sample by ComRes of those north of the border was 176 which, at first glance, means we re only sure that about 68 1/2 people have expressed their readiness to fight  not for glory, or for riches, or for honour alone, but for freedom alone  or   since we don t yet know with certainty what the referendum will offer   perhaps for  servitude lite  or  supernumerary layer of local government max . actually, although the poll s sample may be uselessly small, it is slightly better than that: Scottish responses in favour of independence were 49%, a figure which would have been unthinkable even in the heady days of the 1970s.  So there has certainly been a shift in public opinion in the direction of the Nationalists, as the last election result conclusively demonstrated.  What s more, there can be no doubt that Mr Salmond and his followers now make the political weather. Whatever they do, the Scottish Tories and Liberal Democrats seem unable to gain any real electoral support; while the Scottish Labour party is currently in a catastrophic state.  That, I d argue, is a function of the party s current lack of a political narrative, its disastrous handling of the economy at UK level, and the complacency and ineptitude of too many of its politicians, created by its long-standing dominance in Scotland. But it means that the SNP has no effective opposition just now   an alarming state of affairs, to say the least, in the run-up to a vote of such importance.  Exhilarating, of course, by those who are convinced by the case for full independence. But, despite this poll, I m very far from convinced that anything like a majority of Scots are ready to vote for that   though I can readily believe they would considering voting for the Nationalists. That s because the party has played its hand very cannily since the creation of the Holyrood parliament   vindicating, in the process, those from both sides who argued that devolution would be likely to strengthen the moral and political case for nationalism, rather than pull the rug from under its feet. Gradualism has served the SNP well, and Mr Salmond s government (whatever you think of it) has, at the very least, been no less inept than his predecessors  were.  On the other hand, it certainly hasn t been a tale of unalloyed success. The many social provisions unavailable in England are simply not affordable in the long term, at least without varying the basic rate of income tax, the devolved power the SNP administration already has, but which it has not only failed to employ, but allowed to fall beyond effective use.  Nor has  Plan MacB  been the triumph that Mr Salmond claims: only a fraction of a percentage point separates the unemployment figures north and south of the border. Given the greater size of the public sector in Scotland, and the fact that male unemployment is actually worse here (and that the larger percentage of women in employment are still, unjustly, much more likely to be in part-time, low-paid work), it is in fact highly debatable whether Scotland s economic position differs greatly from other parts of the UK.  From a Nationalist perspective, these are all healthy arguments for increasing the powers of the Scottish government. If we want a different political settlement, different social provision or education spending, the power to handle much of macroeconomic policy, let us live with and pay for the consequences of those budgetary priorities.  Herein lies the probl 