From the outside looking in, it was a remarkable affair.

Broadcast reverently by Sky and the BBC, granted the lead in all the news bulletins, analysed to within an inch of what passes for life by every pundit who could reach a keyboard: it was a big deal, surely.

In the aftermath there was even a snap poll to tell us who had won and who had lost in the first round of a titanic struggle. First round, you say? As it transpires, one bout isn't enough to do justice to a historic squabble. Another shouting match will be held on Wednesday.

Which is odd. One of the contenders donning a statesman's mantle for these TV debates represents a party with no MPs to its name. That's zero. The other man is a well-fired slice of a bakery product where elections are concerned. Dispassionately, the televised argument between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg was a battle between the political equivalent of squeaky toys.

For MPs representing what Westminster calls minor parties, this has to be galling. In fact, with elections to the European Parliament on May 22, the granting of so much airtime to just two factions is of very doubtful propriety. For Mr Farage, in particular, it amounts to free publicity beyond even his fevered dreams.

If you happen to be keen on the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionists, the UUP or even, who knows, the SNP, this is more than trivial. Where was their chance to hector Mr Clegg? Ukip meanwhile has no representation whatever in Scotland or Northern Ireland: the phenomenon has no relevance, and nor is it likely to have any relevance after May 22.

At present Wales has a single Ukip MEP; the north-east and south-west of England have none. A pair of former Ukip stalwarts in the West Midlands style themselves these days as independents, as does a lone voice in Yorkshire and the Humber. Despite these facts, the Farage-Clegg debates have been presented as one of those "national" events liable to leave many asking "Who, us?"

At stake are European elections. No-one will be forming a government because of the outcome. All euro constituencies are therefore of equal importance and equally worthy - though chance would be a fine thing - of TV's consideration. Scotland has a particular interest in its European future and in the possible sequence of events that could follow our referendum if Mr Farage's free airtime results in votes and Tory panic.

After the first round of argy bargy, London commentators ignored all of this. There was the familiar, complacent assumption that "Europe", together with the issue of immigration, means the same things to people all over these islands. The fascination was prompted by polls suggesting Ukip could exceed the Conservative share of the vote on May 22. But that won't happen here. It won't happen in several parts of the United Kingdom.

What we got, then, was news from the southern half of England treated as though it mattered to all. This was divergence with a vengeance. After the first debate, some pundits said Mr Farage and his party were on "the national stage" at last. Ukip? The party that struggles to save its deposit in Scotland? The party that managed just 610 votes in the Cowdenbeath by-election and deemed the result a triumph? Where is this UK of which Mr Farage speaks?

The second strand to the London narrative has it that Ukip's rise makes a British withdrawal from the EU more likely. The thinking runs that, after a trouncing from the Faragists, Tory opinion, like public opinion, will harden. David Cameron's attempts to secure agreement for EU reforms will fail to placate his party or the voters. The Prime Minister's promised "in-out" referendum, scheduled (if he is re-elected) for 2017 at the latest, will see Britain quit the Union.

It's not quite so simple. For one thing, the prominence of Mr Farage has more to do with assiduously cultivated fears over immigration than with "Europe". According to one recent UK-wide poll, continued EU membership is favoured by 42% against 36% for withdrawal, with 22% undecided or disinclined to vote. Mr Clegg might have been clobbered in the snap post-match survey, but the cause he espouses is far from lost. Again, Mr Farage speaks for a strand of opinion in the English south.

His lack of success elsewhere is best illustrated by still another poll. In Scotland, in January, 51% were in favour of remaining in the EU with 31% favouring withdrawal (the rest were undecided). If Scotland votes Yes in September, meanwhile, the numbers harden: 54% to stay in; 29% to leave; 18% don't know.

Such figures would concentrate European minds during discussions to secure an independent Scotland's continued EU membership, whatever the imaginings of Jose Manuel Barrioso, President of the European Commission. In rational times, among rational people, the findings would also influence Tory backbenchers. That might be too much to hope for these days. A big group of them will settle for nothing less than withdrawal.

Scottish voters face a quandary, then. They have no interest in what Ukip is selling. Just 16% of them say they mean to vote Tory in the next Westminster elections. Other polls say a majority of them want to hang on to EU membership. Yet there it is, all over the TV screens: Mr Farage besting Mr Clegg, according to the snapshot, by 57% to 36%. Meanwhile, a chorus of comment says the UK is "heading for the European exits".

Not necessarily. But nor is it certain Mr Cameron and his EU reforms will be enough to preserve the UK's membership of the Union. Scotland, excluded utterly from the televised exchange of insults, still runs the risk of having its future in Europe decided by parties to which it gives little or no credence. This too is divergence. This too is a referendum issue.

Mr Clegg's devotion to the European ideal is not seriously in doubt. In this, if in little else, he can be believed. His desire to shore up his remaining core vote and attract the support of those repelled by Ukip also helps to explain his desire to take on Mr Farage. It will do him little good, however. Euroscepticism might be far from absolute across the UK. In the constituencies which matter most to Tory backbenchers, in the places where Ukip thrives, Mr Clegg is wasting his time.

To those who pored over the first debate, such places are also all that matters. Looking in from afar the sense of watching another country go about its business was strong. It was only matched by the sense of being taken for granted: a squabble between two men mattered in media London. No-one so much as paused to wonder how or why it mattered elsewhere.

It does matter, but only in complicated, roundabout ways. If there is a No vote in September the chances of Scotland being forced from the EU against its will can only increase. The risk of being obliged to take Mr Farage seriously while spurning him at the polls will meanwhile become a grisly reality.