After the domestic excitement of the independence referendum and the General Election, the political gaze has shifted to Europe, due to the protracted negotiations with Greece, and with all sorts of  - exits being coined by the acronym police.

The upcoming referendum on UK membership of the European Union stands on interesting ground in Scotland.

During the independence campaign, the “Yes” camp promoted the idea that membership of a wider European Union would give an independent Scotland more input than its current status as a subsumed part of UK membership, and that closer and more beneficial links could be forged with European neighbours.

There were those in the “No” camp – , Tory and UKIP – who argued in favour of the UK union – on the basis of “pooling and sharing” and “the protection of being part of something bigger” who will find themselves arguing for a “Brexit” next year on the grounds of the democratic deficit of “decisions being taken elsewhere” and because Britain “should have its own voice”. A reversal of tune which promotes the thought of “goose” and “gander”!

Perhaps the most interesting constitutional question will arise if Scotland and Wales vote “Yes” to continuing membership, while England votes “No”. Indeed, there will be those who will vote “Yes” in Scotland specifically hoping for such an outcome.

However, it might be that we should be paying closer attention to the EU rather than our own domestic affairs when deciding how to vote.

At the last UK Referendum on the EU in 1975, many who considered themselves pro European, left wing, and progressive found themselves voting against continuing membership on the grounds that they feared the EU would become a ‘rich man’s club – geared to boost the bigger economies, whilst the more vulnerable and geographically remote members of the union were neglected.

The intervening forty years, culminating in the recent treatment of Greece, has suggested there were some grounds to these fears. Industries like fishing and agriculture have benefited from subsidies, but also in places been weakened by EU policies. Scotland has suffered through not having a direct voice to represent its interests in Brussels.

What is clear, and inevitable, is that the extended EU is now a different institution from the one time six -and then nine - member organisation.

A look at some of the more extreme views arraigned against continuing membership brings little comfort, but we owe it to ourselves to examine exactly what we are voting for in terms of the EU’s future.

It seems increasingly unlikely that the expanded model will find effective ways of satisfying the demands of the powerful financial institutions whilst at the same time supporting the smallest and most vulnerable members. There is no doubt that the countries of Europe working together positively can be a force for good – domestically and internationally – but if it remains unbalanced as it is, then internal dissension and stalemate may well minimise its possibilities.

Perhaps for smaller countries, the ‘external association’ model might be a way forward. The European Free Trade Area and the European Economic Area allow for non EU countries such as Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and  Liechenstein to operate alongside the EU – and might prove a more attractive option for some of the EU’s less influential members. An independent Scotland, given its geographical position, and its energy resources, as well as strong European trading record, might well be in a position to make a favourable external arrangement with the EU – particularly with  England seeking to continue the benefits of cross border trade- whilst playing a leading part in a reformed EFTA/EEA.

Such a move, of course, would be a risk, but, as the people of Greece would tell you, it is as big a risk to rely on the goodwill of fellow EU members.