With the New Year, I've been reflecting on decades of supporting Scottish independence, and it's interesting to note how perceptions of the road to an independent Scotland have changed over the years.

Back in the sixties, when it seemed a remote possibility, there was an assumption that Scotland would achieve a mandate for independence by electing a majority of SNP MPs and this would be followed by negotiations and autonomy.

Little was said of a scenario where the SNP achieved a majority in the popular vote but not in seats - which would have been interesting. Of course, the thought of a referendum based on an SNP majority in a Scottish Parliament was beyond consideration - and remained so, even after the Parliament's establishment, given a structure which was intended to make an overall majority difficult if not impossible.

However, one element, for me at least, remained pretty consistent. Whenever I imagined the tone and content of the debate over the country's future, I foresaw a constitutional discussion about the important questions involved.

Has a nation any right to abdicate responsibility for running its own affairs? Was it not time to leave the 'big boy did it and ran away' political culture and face up to governing our own country? Should Scotland not play its full part in the world community, rather than being filtered through the UK as a tenth of its population? Would we not want to build stronger links with the countries around us, including England, in a manner that reflected the wishes of the Scottish people? Was it time for a different way of governance, with policies and intentions suited to Scotland's history and culture?

They are big questions and not simply debated, but surely merit attention when we are considering the entire future of our country? We might have expected a basic version of these issues in the popular press, but surely the tone of the debate would have been on a more philosophical level?

I would not have believed it could have been watered down to "Do you like Alex Salmond? Or "Do you trust Alistair Darling?" While both men have impacted on Scottish and UK political life, they are hardly the stuff of centuries of history.

Most depressing of all, however, is the willingness of both sides to reduce the whole discussion to the level of "Better off", even to the point of quantifying it on an annual, numerical, basis. This 21st century echo of Harold Wilson's "Pound in your Pocket" is essentially meaningless. How better off? Who better off? Does it mean more spending money for all? Or less for some, but more for the majority? Is it the 'better off' indicated by living in a country with good effective social policies and responsive government? Or the "better off" suggested by membership of the Security Council and G8?

Or is it a compliance with the marketing dream that the more you have to spend individually, the happier you will be, and the 'better off' the country will be.

I hope that will not be the reality of 2014: a nation of voters unable to see down the years past the big sign which reads "What's in it for me?"

What was that about a Parcel of Rogues?