WHEN Nicola Sturgeon launches the SNP’s new drive for independence this week, it would be best not to dwell on the seasonal aspect. Knocked off course by Brexit and with autumn in the air, the party’s long-awaited “summer initiative” is already a misnomer.

But what matters is not the name, but the substance of the event. It will not be a straightforward or comfortable occasion. It is, in effect, the start of the post-mortem the SNP has put off for two years.

Dazed by loss in September 2014, elated by a membership spike, absorbed by a change of leader, two elections and the EU referendum, there has been little space to conduct it until now.

But finally the party is squaring up to the questions that have kept harrying it these past 24 months.

Why did Yes lose? Why did No prevail? Was it the economy, the currency, pensions?

And as it asks those questions, it is also thinking about the ones that follow.

What to do differently next time? What would convince a No voter to choose Yes? Has Brexit brought independence closer or will its slippery complexity make it harder?

As supporters of independence, we applaud these moves. Deal with the hard questions from the get-go - win minds, and the hearts will follow.

At Westminster, SNP MPs are already examining options for the currency of an independent Scotland.

Sharing the pound with the rest of the UK has few champions now.

The candidates in the deputy leadership contest have also highlighted the need for change.

Angus Robertson says the Yes movement must improve its offer on currency and pensions.

Tommy Sheppard says Scotland’s future is in the hands of No voters: the 45 per cent aren’t going away but nor are they enough, so No voters must be systematically won over.

That won’t happen by putting a fresh cover on the prospectus that failed last time. There needs to be a fresher, more candid approach. The First Minster's new drive seems to be rightly following that path.

Announcing the initiative in March, the First Minister said she had not wavered in her belief that independence was a “beautiful dream”, a belief this paper shares, but she was also blunt about past arguments not being “compelling enough” to convince most of the country.

This week, as she addresses that, the Unionist parties will doubtless accuse her of neglecting the basics of good government and retreating to a constitutional comfort zone. Let them carp.

The dream remains a beautiful one, and she should follow it however difficult the path.