Darren McGarvey says of Scottish independence: "It's not just about getting over the line, it's about the quality of the journey". On the face of it that line now seems further away, in the wake of the SNP's decision not to commit to a second independence referendum over the course of the next parliament. As expected, they've fudged it. A new referendum would require "material change" - like a UK vote to leave the European Union without Scottish assent - or proof of a decisive majority in favour of Indyref Mark II. These are big ifs. The SNP backers who say the party represents the only vehicle to independence - high-quality journey or no - are now left with a driver who's decided to stop off overnight at a B&B. It's a position that will feed increasingly critical voices on the pro-indy Left who say the SNP are too timid and have grown comfortable in power - such as RISE, announcing in their manifesto on Tuesday unequivocal support for a second referendum in the next five years. But there's being timid and there's being careful. To anyone who supports Scottish independence, calling a second referendum too soon represents the single greatest threat to this dream. It's always advisable to provide a cautionary note before launching into any comparison between the Scottish experience and Quebec's. Different referenda, different political climates, and as a result, different political footballs getting kicked about. But here goes anyway. The first Quebec referendum, put to the people in 1980, asked them if they wanted sovereignty while maintaining "an economic association" with Canada. The pro-independence Parti Québécois (PQ) provincial government which called the referendum named this proposal "Sovereignty-Association". The result of this was a complex and convoluted question, over one hundred words long, that didn't quite have the same ring to it as: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" They lost by a 60/40 margin. The PQ returned to the people in 1995 with a new referendum, this time asking an improved, less cumbersome question, more in the spirit of Scotland's own. The PQ's campaigning approach was also similar to the SNP's, in seeking continued economic and political partnerships with its larger neighbour. As one disgruntled Canadian columnist put it, reflecting last year on the referendum's 20-year anniversary: "Quebec separatist leaders of the day sought to establish a new country but wanted to keep Canadian currency and by extension, Canadian monetary policy, the Canadian passport and the use of Canadian military assets. What would have been the point?" Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Figure in as well that the PQ won nearly 50% of the vote and took 54 seats in the preceding 1993 Canadian federal elections, then stormed into majority government in 1994's provincial elections with 45% of the vote. The 1995 referendum went down to the wire - but ultimately voters rejected independence by a razor-thin margin of 50.6%. Since then the people of Quebec have not been so kind to the PQ. While the party ousted the Liberals in 2012 to form a minority government, it was trounced in its own snap-election in 2014, left with 30 seats to the Liberals' 70. During that election campaign, a despondent senior strategist for the PQ said: "I've always been an optimist on sovereignty, but I've rarely been as pessimistic as I am right now." He added this was because supporters of sovereignty were now too afraid of losing a third referendum. Boosted by a popular new leader, Pierre Karl Péladeau, a poll last May put the PQ at 34% and support for sovereignty at 42%, up from 32% the previous year. My take on all of this is: If you lose a second independence referendum, don't expect to get a third crack anytime soon - or to stay in power much longer. While the PQ was re-elected in 1998, the party slumped to defeat in 2003, losing 31 seats and 10% of its vote. More importantly, sovereignty was kicked into the long grass. While it still remains the PQ's ultimate goal, the public has shifted away from it, particularly younger generations. A 2014 poll suggested 60% of Quebecers do not think the province will ever separate. Two-thirds agreed they felt no need to choose between being a Quebecer and a Canadian and 30% said they felt more attached to Canada. Independence is not inevitable, not for Quebec and not for Scotland. As much as the SNP likes to cultivate the image of an inexorable, one-way home rule journey, it simply isn't true. Why risk it all, just two years after the first referendum, only to crash the car into a wall? The huge danger for Nicola Sturgeon is that in calling and losing a second independence referendum, her party and the dream of independence would be snapped out of the political zeitgeist into the realms of what-could-have-been. She might win, of course, but current polls do not suggest it would be a particularly emphatic victory - even in the Brexit scenario. Many of the problems with the economic case for independence in 2014 have either not been properly ironed-out or have actually got worse - there's no way to spin the crash in oil revenues, for instance, as anything but an almighty kick in the teeth. It means the current prospectus lacks its former economic "hook". Not only that, but an early referendum could alienate the very No voters a future Yes campaign would need to persuade. Are the omens good for a referendum victory so soon after the last defeat? Despite the SNP's campaigning strength, and a slightly more hospitable media landscape, I struggle to believe the time is now. And you'll find few examples of a referendum question being put to the same people a third time after being defeated twice. The PQ have been waiting 20 years for a sovereign Quebec. Were we to have a similar experience, many of those breathless, dedicated SNP campaigners the party depends on, driven on by the ultimate dream of independence, may never live to see it. Left-wing critics who say Sturgeon's decision is a case study in SNP timidity and politicking might have a point. But that doesn't mean it's not the smart move - and the right move. Comment by Dan Vevers, STV's Holyrood election reporter. You can contact him at dan.vevers@stv.tv.