We truly live in the age of celebrity. Mike Myers, the voice of cartoon character Shrek, has been asked how he might vote in the independence referendum.

A bit of fun, but it follows on from headlines involving the views of Sean Connery, Brian Cox, Stanley Baxter and JK Rowling, whilst the Murray family could hardly access the tennis courts of south west London without being asked about their voting intentions.

Why should the spin doctors assume that people's voting intentions will be swayed by the endorsement, or otherwise, of an actor, sports star or business man?

Like the rest of us, each of these folk have their own hinterland, a lifetime of experiences, and a philosophical approach to life. Presumably their views will be based on all of those personal details - in exactly the same way as for those of us less 'famous'.

There is something more than a little adolescent in looking for political guidance from those who we admire for other talents, and, given recent court cases, a warning against taking 'celebrity' at face value, perhaps.

Indeed, maybe the biggest example of such a simplistic approach has been evidenced with the presentation of Robert the Bruce as 'founder of the nation'.

Whilst there is no denying the import of history and the crucial nature of the Battle of Bannockburn, to present Bruce as the ultimate Scottish patriot is to make considerably more than five after adding two and two. You would expect information to be sketchy after seven centuries, but most historians suggest that, in the manner of the times, Bruce was far more interested in his own advancement than that of the nation.

To base the nationhood of modern Scotland on an Anglo-Norman nobleman from medieval times is perhaps as relevant as to look towards the views of a contemporary rock stars, actors or writers.

The whole point of self determination, surely, is that the term applies to the individual as much as the nation. It is about political maturity, refusing to blame others for our ills, and wanting to take responsibility for our own affairs. It is an end to the days of claiming: "A big Westminster boy did it and ran away" or "It's bad but what can we do about it?"

There are those who would claim that 300 years of Union should not be 'thrown away'. Nobody has yet explained how that history could be wiped out - any more than the English have expunged Roman, Norman or Anglo Saxon traits.

We are who we have become - but nations don't stop developing, and the state of Great Britain has clearly reached a time where the benefits of union are outweighed by the need for freedom of national expression and the imperative to take responsibility for our own affairs.

Just as the child is father to the man, the union can be father to a more confident, outward looking, independent Scotland

I am leerie of those who suggest the complexities of Westminster rule are somehow a good thing and that the quest for independence is based on a wish for feeble simplicity in government. Adults often take the line with children: "It's too complicated, you wouldn't understand." Usually they do so when they have no better, more reasoned, argument.

In Scotland, we need the simplicity of a government more closely linked with the people who vote for it, and to their aspirations as a society; we don't need the simplicity of celebrity endorsements.