Before the internet, even quite striking political phrases had a struggle to embed themselves into the national consciousness, at least outside of national crises.

From 1960 onwards, perhaps a handful of quotes would be universally recalled:

"The wind of change", "Ask not what your country can do for you", "Well he would, wouldn't he?" "The white heat of technology", "Rivers of Blood", "The pound in your pocket", Ich bin ein Berliner", "I have a Dream". Some great speeches were given, some inspiring thoughts were shared, but, before the spread of social media, most struggled to resonate beyond their context.

However, since Twitter, Facebook and their allies have arrived, even mundane political comments may be repeated and retweeted thousands of times, and as a result, they inhabit our elephantine digital memory.

This is currently proving awkward for the British Constitution. I would refer you to it in its written form, but, unfortunately, much like its close cousin, "British values", it does not appear to be written down anywhere.

Having such a 'flexible' constitution, may be a gift for politicians, who can interpret its workings to suit their aims. The problem comes when those aims become obviously contradictory.

Social media was a huge component of the Referendum campaign, and what was said during those months is well committed to the memory of voters, as well as 'anoraks'. All sides are affected by this, of course, but it is where the message has changed that it becomes awkward, especially in the area of 'parliamentary democracy'.

'Better Together' told us that the UK was a family of equal nations, where Scotland was a valued and much loved member. David Miliband was so keen for Scotland to 'stay' that he described the UK as 'One Nation', for a week or two.

Either way - whether Scotland is a region of a UK 'country' - or if it is an equal member of a 'family of nations', this should be reflected in the operation of the Westminster parliament.

Come the General Election campaign, however, and the noises from south of the Border sound different again. The threat of up to fifty SNP MPs - interestingly, unlike the previous presence of a similar number of Labour MPs from Scotland - is seen as a 'threat to democracy', 'another country having undue influence in 'our' Parliament', and 'undemocratic' - some welcome for the elected representatives of a 'much loved' part of the UK 'country', or for the choice of voters from an 'equal member' of our 'family of nations'.

That the supporters of the self styled 'mother of democracies' should be upset by a legitimate election result is strange, and the thought that 50 or so members in a house of 650 members could be 'unfair representation' is also bizarre. Scottish voters have long experience of UK governments who don't represent the policies for which they voted, and have been told repeatedly that is the way that parliamentary democracy works.

If Scotland is a mere region of a UK 'country', there should be no issue over the MPs it returns; if it is, indeed, 'another country' interfering in parliamentary democracy, then, self evidently, it should be independent. The mixed message seems to be: "Don't go, but don't rock the boat" - which could well serve as Westminster's motto.

To bowldlerise one more well remembered political comment: it seems that 27 weeks is not a long time in politics, not long enough to forget, anyway.