Pupils from my old school were in New York on an educational excursion. At the United Nations Headquarters they bumped into Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, with resultant conversation, handshakes and pictures.

It brought back memories of my own visit to the UN two years ago.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but, despite its shortcomings, I can't be cynical about the organisation. It is far from perfect, but, to paraphrase Churchill, it is the worst world forum apart from all the others which have been tried. The idea that, however notionally, the countries of the world can come together to exchange views across a debating chamber, rather than a battlefield, seems to me worth pursuing and supporting.

When I visited that chamber, I found myself behind the desks for countries under "S". It was hard seeing the space between Saudi Arabia and Sierra Leone and knowing that Scotland could be there - making its voice heard, playing its part in the world community.

It was, perhaps, a reflection of the differences between those who favour independence and those who support the union.

The case for the union is often presented as Scotland's retention of 'influence' in international bodies- as part of the UK. It is a doubly specious argument. Firstly, as 5 million people in a union of more than 60 million, UK decisions will only reflect our concerns when they tally with those of the greater number. Secondly, the canard that the UK has major influence in world affairs does not bear scrutiny. Even within the UN structure, and within the Security Council - membership of which seems to drive the UK desire for the retention of obsolete nuclear weapons - the UK's view carries only when it is deemed to be in US interests. The UK has minimal 'power' in major world events, and, as a 'region' within that entity, Scotland has none.

However, more important, is the way in which 'power' is viewed by the UK. Along with its allies, it tends to see the UN as an "enforcing" organisation or a rubber stamp for its policies. In support of the US, it has often disregarded the majority UN view if it failed to echo its own strategies.

For most countries, the importance of the UN is not as an alliance of military threat, but as a setting for exchange of views, representation of their people's interests, the chance to make their individual voices heard.

Increasingly it seems that it is in this direction that 'civic nationalism' is taking Scotland - to a place where it can be outward looking and collaborative and play its part in the world community in a positive rather than threatening manner. It is a constructive alternative to the bellicose approach to which the UK establishment still seem committed, a plea for Scots to be listened to rather than ignored, to be visible rather than submerged in a greater entity. Ironically, the previous charge of "parochial nationalism" is now better fitted to the major UK parties -with their focus on EU exit referendum and limits on immigration - both to Scotland's detriment.

Scotland can be a force for good in a forum like the UN, without the need to be coat tailing the military industrial complex and its universal threat. To return to that most unlikely source in Churchill - it is time for Scotland to show its belief that Jaw Jaw is indeed better than War War.

If this seems a far fetched and theoretical argument, it should be remembered that in 1945, and at FDR's insistence, one of the founder members of the UN was India - at the time under British rule and not independent.

Scotland's got talent - time to give it a Voice…..