It’s a highly misleading assessment, though. The actual effect of Scottish votes in those elections were trivial. The 1964 and 1974 votes produced weak Labour governments with tiny majorities which only lasted for a combined total of about two years. Without Scottish votes, similarly weak and short-lived Tory administrations would probably have resulted.

(In 1974, Labour could have simply allied with the Liberals from the word go to provide a majority, rather than forming the Lib-Lab Pact later.)

And in 2010 the difference was pretty insignificant. Without Scotland we’d have ended up with David Cameron and George Osborne in charge. Well, lucky we dodged THAT bullet, eh?

The question “what is best for everyone affected by the referendum, wherever they live?” is only relevant in as much as Scots wish to consider it. Here I’m considering only the relevance of the rest of the UK on a decision to be made by Scottish people, and not an internationalist approach which the article author writes of.

However I suppose it would seem rather pointless in a determination of whether independence is to manifest or not if the effect of the referendum on everyone, everywhere were to be thought the ultimate consideration, reigning over the question about what is good for “one”. It’s difficult to hold that ideas which may be viewed somewhat in the way of charitable dispositions ought to be the most relevant factor, whether independence or remaining in a historic, single, national union of lands is favoured.

Consider the man or woman in a company who’s needs and potential are felt not to be fulfilled or are substantially constrained somehow. The person tninks, significantly, things are not going so well and there is a lot to be unhappy with and regret about their working life. The person considers staying with the company because they are persuaded they are thought good for it and are well liked. (Aside, it’s no irrelevant point whether the person feels liked and of worth herself.) Further, consider the person who contemplates staying ultimately because others express those notions mentioned to good extents. However, here they are said because the others in the company do not like change, or are insecure in their own identity and sense of present sense and future (obscured by a sense of being lost within what has already been), or both.

Is there good reason in any of these cases to consider the apparent interests of others above one’s own singular potential, purpose, needs and preferences? Even where the wish of the others in the company to retain the person is based on genuinely liking things as they are, concluding that things do appear to work reasonably well enough, is this really enough to override differing, independent impulses for satisfaction and the best situation for this person?

Further, of course, is the issue inherent this company’s identity, over such a long period during the status quo which has been, and indeed strongly evidence recently, of a desire to control and a desire to possess. This has often said to be connected with a sense of knowing what’s best for others rather than allowing them their own, final, unfettered, independent will.

Long has this strong disposition been connected with a history that has seen the company mostly forcibly, sometimes a little more amicably, commandeer control of a vast amount of other sovereign companies in building the hugest conglomeration of companies throughout much of the extent of where companies can possibly be found. It’s not to say the person considering leaving the company did not find themselves similarly defined during the long history. However what is very, very clear is that this is not, or at least should not be, about the past. Present and future should never be about the past.

These points ought to make one at least question, if not be very wary, of assessing one’s own interests with a preference for considering as most relevant the apparent, purported or estimated interests of the noted others as well.

What these essential considerations may further highlight is that certain others, despite what they may proclaim in good, better, worse or worse still faith, may not really have much of an accurate clue what is even really in their interests. Let alone what they strongly propose to be, for one, in one’s own best interest.

My own instinct is that the prevailing and ever increasing entrenchment in awareness of the identity of this nation which seems to be somehow made up of smaller, distinct and distinctly regional, quasi-independent defined strongholds has become something, no, very much of a farce. Today I read in the Financial Times, bizarrely, but I suppose with some wit and much acuity, that the UK has become a truly multinational nation. The FT is referring to the ever growing strength of distinction, of fierce separatism in identity within pat least parts of the four lands which make it, rather than global corporate issues.

If the FT have gauged things accurately, and I think they have, it is making clear to me I don’t think I wish to live in a political entity which appears to be more or less a complete contradiction in terms. Typically what’s painted now is an irresolvable, living paradox, where, over there and over there and over there, other nations seem not to be defined by such a baffling, intrinsic paradox or contradiction, simply.

I always liked the idea of the UK, the four regions, yes regions, within a predictably arranged nation (just the one, please; any more when referring to the same “country” is bound to confuse the children at least). That is, one nation where there is only one sovereign nation. Where there truly is more than one nation, let’s think, can’t we be honest about this and bring ourselves into a position of defining units accurately, properly, sympathetically for what is felt, meant, desired? By all means, if we are to continue to fiercely describe, and seemingly just as fiercely prescribe, that our land is made of four nations rather than that our nation is made of four regional parts it is easily time to move to something at least a little more honest in the constitutional books, to be written wherever.

Again, I always liked the idea of the UK, the four regions, yes regions, within a predictably arranged nation, just like most others nations. The day has long passed, however, since when that simple sentiment, once thought an overriding, unquestionable, fundamental and simple reality has been trodden down. It has become impossible to me to see that country, UK, anymore, except in terms of something of a legend. In the good days now I remember it was real, though.

Those days are a lot better than what is more usually allowed through in the modern psyche of the mid twenty-teens, that that simple, perhaps typical nation, UK, only ever was a legend. This not being a good state for things, my best estimate is that this is truly a time which can best embrace change, and perhaps really needs to. Not for economic benefits, that’s not the point, the estimates see things changing not at all to only slightly there. But for the things which make and use the money which makes any economy or economies: human beings.

I wonder, are many people really convinced of the reasons given to avoid such change? Or are they simply holding on emotively for they haven’t yet really attained a position of sight, insight and foresight in being able and calmly awake enough to assess really meaningful reasons for or against change? This means identifying who they are by way of what they truly want and what and how they want to be, with the most thought, but without being emotionally blinkered.