Other than the absence of references to the Section 30 process in her statements and speeches, the indications are that the SNP's 'official' position continues to be that the party is seeking a mandate to first of all petition Boris Johnson for the permission he has repeatedly and unequivocally said he will not grant under any circumstances. The purpose of this being, apparently, to prove to the international community that Boris is not lying when he says this and that the Scottish Government acknowledges Scotland's subordinate status in the Union.
People are not innately rational actors. We have a conceit of ourselves that because we come equipped with these immensely powerful brains, everything we do is carefully calculated. All the pros and cons have been weighed. All the facts have been gathered and considered. This is very much the exception which proves there is no rule that says we must use the brainpower at our disposal. Mostly, we don't.
It is not good enough to say that we need independence to effectively address the aftermath of the pandemic while also saying that we can't even begin the process of restoring Scotland's independence until the aftermath is upon us. It is not good enough because it doesn't even make any sense. The different bits of your not-quite promise don't join up.
It irks to see people falling for the blandishments of manipulators. It's like that bit in a nightmare where you see someone you care about walking into danger and you want to scream a warning but you can't; or your warnings can't be heard. I see the Pavlovian response to some glittering generality and I get annoyed. Perhaps unreasonably so. Maybe even irrationally so. An age thing?
Nobody in the SNP leadership appears to be asking that most obvious of questions: Why is this happening? Or, if they are, they're answering that question in the shallow, petty manner evidenced by Angus Robertson's initial response. Nobody, so far as can be determined from public statements and private rumours, is asking that question in a serious, thoughtful way. Not even Mike Russell.
Superficially at least, Alba Party doesn't fall into the same category as the cunning plan parties that were always destined to be ineffective and ineffectual. There was never any possibility of any or all of them doing anything 'for independence'. Hence the irony of 'Action for Independence. But that is well-trodden ground. The question now is, what makes Alba Party different? Apart from the presence of Alex Salmond.
What I'm trying to convey here is a sense of how underwhelmed I am by it all. Which is only significant if one factors in what a politics anorak I am.
Of course, the SNP's manifesto hasn't been published. It may not even have been written yet. But there are abundant clues as to its probable content in various statements from Nicola Sturgeon, Mike Russell and others. We also now have the draft Referendum Bill, which provides conclusive evidence of the SNP leadership's thinking on the constitutional issue.
I'd be perfectly content to get behind Nicola Sturgeon if I had reason to believe she was leading us where I want to go. I have great uncertainty about where she is leading the country. I have grave misgivings about where she has led the party. And I have strong objections to being told my questions have been answered when none has even been acknowledged.
Nicola Sturgeon is innocent.