Just what is the point of the SNP convention in Dundee?

The context. The history. The lighting, subdued to protect the 700-year old document.

And of course the sentiment in the Latin text itself, a statement of Scottish sovereignty. Here translated: “It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

Madame Ecosse, as she was frequently styled, was, in one sense, a fundamentalist. She regarded the case for Scottish independence as self-evident, incontestable. Equally, though, she fully understood the need to cajole and campaign, to persuade the sceptical. She was a strategic activist.

And therein lies the dilemma which confronts the SNP’s leader this weekend as party members muster in Dundee for their deferred convention on independence.

Humza Yousaf knows the easy way to assuage his somewhat fretful party. Talk up independence. Declare its proximity. Forecast its attainment.

Cue thunderous applause. Yet he knows, simultaneously, that at least half of Scotland outwith the Caird Hall remains unconvinced. He knows too that his party’s current internal problems mean that even some inside the hall will be unimpressed.

One critic told me that the Dundee gathering was “a waste of time”. That Humza Yousaf was still talking at the party, rather than listening and engaging.

Team Yousaf readily concede that the Dundee gathering will be a somewhat hybrid event. A sounding board, an opportunity to vent ideas – and concerns.

Another source suggested to me that physically gathering in the Caird Hall might bring people together and remind them of the bonds they share.

Plus they have a true hero of their movement to laud, in Winnie Ewing. Their praise will be voluminous and genuine. My sympathies to the Ewing family.

I fully expect that the Dundee event will be a unifying experience for the SNP. That tends to happen when they focus firmly upon independence. Members set aside the issues which divide – as they turn to their core aim.

But, in a wider sense, that scarcely matters. They still have three fundamental problems – none of which will be resolved in Dundee this weekend.

They await an end to the police investigation into SNP finances. They have to tackle key policy problems in government. And they have to advance support for that core aim of independence.

There is discernible exasperation within the SNP at the duration of the police inquiry. Equally, they know they can do nothing but wait – and hope.

This week Nicola Sturgeon again stressed her innocence. One or two in the party would prefer a period of silence on her part. Most, though, applaud her service – and fortitude.

On policy, we encountered a new front this week with Labour’s energy plan to rely upon renewables and veto new North Sea oil and gas licences.

Not an easy sell in the North-east but Labour’s calculation will be that Scotland and the UK as a whole can be persuaded with the pledge of jobs and savings.

The Tories went on all-out attack, warning that thousands of existing Scottish jobs were in jeopardy.

Trickier for Mr Yousaf. His own party’s position, bolstered vigorously by the Greens, is to move away from hydrocarbons.

He finessed it by urging a just – and presumably steady – transition away from oil and gas.

The SNP then broaden that to suggest that the UK is again treating Scotland as an energy “cash cow”, this time with renewables. That is vigorously contested by Labour.

More generally, the SNP pitch will be to equate Labour and Conservative – or rather to say that there is not sufficient difference between them in that both endorse Brexit and both oppose indyref2.

Which brings me back to independence. This week we had the latest paper in the Scottish Government series examining issues arising from the proposal to end the Union, with more documents promised.

It was early thinking about a possible written constitution for an independent Scotland. Not, on the face of it, a big vote winner. But worthy of attention.

Firstly, the attempt to define “the sovereignty of the people” within what would be a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.

Beyond this draft, which would be detailed by a wide-ranging Convention, some intriguing notions.

Constitutional recognition for the NHS, entrenched nuclear disarmament and “economic, social and cultural rights” – which might include “an adequate standard of living”.

One can easily see problems, notably with that last point. How is it defined? What factors would go before a tribunal in the event of a rights claim?

In truth, these matters mostly diverge from the constitution. They more resemble the White Paper produced before the 2014 referendum.

They are political promises designed to sway opinion, to persuade people to endorse independence in the first place. These government papers form a cumulative campaign.

Incidentally, I make no complaint about such a strategy. Ministers, both SNP and Green, are committed by their manifesto promises to pursue independence. Within statutory limits, they are entitled to do just that.

One potential rift emerged. The Scottish Government paper says that “independence in itself would not result in a change to the Head of State”. The King would stay for as long as the people wished to retain the monarchy.

By contrast, the Greens proclaimed support for a Republic, ditching the “archaic notion” of monarchy. Put most simply, the SNP sees that as a discourse for another day, distracting from the offer of independence.

And hence back to Dundee. I think the Sturgeon notion of fighting the next UK General Election as a de facto referendum is gone. Not least because the SNP cannot compel the UK Government to comply.

Instead, Humza Yousaf will put independence front and centre of the party’s election campaign, while also addressing other topics.

The hope is that party support will rise to match the sustained backing for ending the Union. That the devolved Parliament reconvened by Winnie Ewing can be a stepping stone to independence. History will record the outcome.