BLAIR Jenkins was certain on the day of the referendum that the Yes side had won.

“We were never complacent, but the information we were getting back from all around the country had us convinced we were going to win,” the former Yes Scotland chief executive says, sipping coffee in an upmarket Glasgow restaurant.

“This wasn’t a question of everyone wearing rose-tinted glasses and talking each other into some kind of phoney enthusiasm. Some very hard-headed, very cynical and sceptical people in different parts of Scotland, with long experience of campaigning, were saying ‘we are going to win here’.”

It was only at 1.30am on September 19, when the Clackmannanshire result came in, that Jenkins realised victory had been a mirage.

“That first result came as a shock. To be honest, because I couldn’t think of any reason why it would be different from the rest of the country....I thought on balance we had probably lost.”

Unlike party political leaders, whose job is to tend their own patch, Jenkins’ role at Yes Scotland was to lead the umbrella group for an independence vote.

He was criticised for toeing the SNP line during the campaign, but one year on it is clear his views on key campaign issues differ from those of ex First Minister Alex Salmond.

Whereas Salmond points to the Vow – the cross-party promise of more devolution by the pro-UK parties – as a primary reason behind a No vote, Jenkins is not convinced:

“I can’t say that I’m persuaded it was the decisive thing, if I’m being honest.”

Jenkins believes the reason Yes lost is clear is that the campaign failed to persuade enough people of the economic case for independence.

“What is definitely true is that the biggest obstacle in terms of getting people to Yes was getting them to believe that we could afford it, that an independent Scotland would be financially strong,” he says.

He comes close to saying that self-interest won the day: “Some of our analysis was suggesting...people who approached the referendum on the basis of ‘we’ and ‘us’ were more inclined to vote Yes, whereas people who were approaching the referendum on the basis of ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘mine’, were more inclined to vote No.”

On the BBC bias demos, which Salmond described as “joyous”, Jenkins also takes a different view.

The former journalist says he “understood” why the protests took place, but adds: “I think it was [Sunday Herald columnist] Iain Macwhirter last week who said it wasn’t a good look.”

Does he believe the demonstrations put off floating voters?

“That was my concern. I don’t know in the end that it did, but I didn’t see that it was winning us any voters.”

The conversation inevitably turns to his leadership of Yes Scotland, which pro-independence supporters believe was uninspiring.

Rather than being at the apex of a grassroots movement, the organisation’s critics believe it was simply of echo of the SNP.

Jenkins always said Yes Scotland would be “self-financing”, but it was revealed after the referendum that the body received an £825,000 bailout from the SNP.

“It was hardly surprising that the SNP would come in at the end of the campaign to deliver what we needed at the end,” he counters.

But it wasn’t a self-financed campaign, was it?

“As we got into 2014, and the closer we got to the referendum, it was clear lots of money was being raised on the other side, and they were clearly gearing up for a huge effort towards the end.”

I raise the targets Yes Scotland set in its “strategic business plan”, subsequently leaked, one of which was to win 65% of the vote.

“I felt it was right,” he says. “If you say, ‘we are aiming for 51%’, that’s not good.”

The document also set a fund-raising target of £24m. In the end, around £5m came in: “I don’t want to talk about that document in particular, as I don’t know which document it is. There were different targets at different times.”

And Yes Scotland wanted five newspaper endorsements . In the end, only the Sunday Herald backed independence.

“There were some titles which were potentially persuadable towards a Yes vote. It was a time in life to be bold, to be ambitious, it wasn’t a time to go for the least you can possibly achieve,” he recalls.

On a second referendum, Jenkins seems closer to the cautious view of Nicola Sturgeon than he is to Salmond, who has said another plebiscite is “inevitable”.

He explains: “It’s highly likely there will be a second referendum. I stop short of inevitable. As a journalist, I think very few things in life are inevitable. The problem with saying that is that people then just expect it to happen.”

I read him back a statement he made before the referendum about the vote being a “once in a lifetime opportunity”.

Does he still think a referendum is a once in a lifetime opportunity?

“I am not all that far off 60 now. It has only happened once in my lifetime,” he replies.

So you were talking about your lifetime?

“When we all talk about ‘in a lifetime’, we all talk about ourselves, don’t we?”

Unlike Sturgeon, Jenkins offers a view on a timescale: “I would have thought 2021 was more likely than 2017.”

If a second referendum is called, Sturgeon, not Salmond, will be the key player.

Does he believe she is better placed than her predecessor to persuade No voters?

“I think that’s right, for all sorts of reasons, some of which Alex would concede. He had been targeted and demonised by large parts of the media...That meant it was difficult for some people to vote Yes.”

Asked if she has a broader appeal than Salmond, he says: “So it would seem.”

Jenkins cuts a more relaxed demeanour than the stressed figurehead who was exhausted twelve months ago.

He did not keep a diary, will not write a book about his time at Yes, and has refused to join any political party.

His role next time, if there is such a thing, will be as a back seat adviser to whoever is his successor.

“I would want to be of service," he says.