Over the past few days our sportswriters have engaged in analysis of what would happen to sport in the event of the fundamental change that Scotland becoming a real country would represent.

Doing so has allowed us to keep the discussion constructive, given the growing repugnance that has been registered at attempts to frighten people into voting one way or another.

In sporting terms, this took a laughable turn when there was even an attempt to suggest that becoming independent might somehow cost Scotland, the Home of Golf, where the event was born and in which the organising body is based, the right to stage Open Championships.

Meanwhile, those who hope a 'No' vote will leave everything as it is must, in reality, realise that in raising the issue of nationhood, we have now alerted the wider world to it and must deal with the consequence of whether we see ourselves as a nation or as a province, such as East Anglia, Kent or Cornwall, all of which were once kingdoms in their own rights.

Perhaps more relevant in a more modern historical context is that German unification happened in 1871, coinciding precisely with the year of engagement of Scotland and England in what are claimed to be the first footballing internationals in both rugby union and soccer.

Taking that British lead, the likes of Bavaria and Saxony, as component parts of the Unified Germany, could still be fielding teams in internationals just as the component parts of the United Kingdom do. That said, I suspect most Bavarians and Saxons are quite happy with their place in world sport right now and maybe Scots should be too, or will have to learn to be.

On which note we must presume that Better Together campaigner John Prescott was only half-joking when, in apparently offering a remark that was considered rather unhelpful to his own side, he suggested: "Here's a revolutionary thought for you: perhaps if England and Scotland together had one team we could at last beat the Germans."

As to how others see us, the rest of the world has long accepted the four Home Unions' international sports teams as common law entities, based on custom and practice, but is now entitled to view this referendum as Scots making their definitive choice on nationality.

The most contentious impact could be on football, with global commentators having quietly, so far, hinted at the potential implications.

That British governing bodies have been foolish enough to maintain the anomaly of perpetually holding four of the eight places on the relatively unimportant, but symbolically significant, International Football Board, only highlights the unfairness of the British associations having four votes to every other nation's one when it comes to matters of real importance in how football runs its affairs.

However, while FIFA's reaction is the most obvious cause for upcoming concern, given the place football has in Scottish life, we have already seen how the dual-nationality dynamic can affect Scottish standing in international sport elsewhere.

Ahead of the London Olympics, for example, leading Scottish basketball players were told that, by representing GB, they disqualified themselves from playing for the Scotland team in international competition.

Hardly the best of both worlds we are repeatedly promised, but similar to the long-standing cricket situation where Scots seeking to play at the highest level must, like Irishmen - even those from the Republic - turn their backs on their national team in order to play for England.

No wonder so many south of the border and abroad seem to have such difficulty differentiating between the words English and British.

Earlier this year, too, I discovered the sorry case of Sk8scotland, which was folding as a would-be governing body because the sport's international federation refused to recognise it, insisting instead that all British skating be governed by an English-based organisation.

Not least because careers are so short, it is both accepted and broadly acceptable that sportspeople tend towards selfishness in terms of their decision-making and many naturally argue that being part of a bigger country improves the chances of a select few to win prizes at the highest level.

However that must be set against the experience of the likes of Alex Arthur, the boxer who felt he was prevented by English administrators from going to the Olympics because he would not tone down his Scottishness during a Commonwealth Games, or Laurence Docherty, who took Dutch citizenship to prove himself as an international hockey player when it was felt the British system was biased against Scottish players.

Furthermore, in team terms is it better for a team of Scottish youngsters to take their best shot at qualifying for major events, or that the odd one who is so talented that he or she cannot be ignored, gains British selection on what sometimes appears to be a token basis?

Longer term my expectation is not only that this referendum will decide such matters but that it should do so, since one of the great themes of this debate has been Scotland's enhanced sense of social justice.

That being the case, as world citizens, it is unreasonable to argue for allowing us to continue to be Scottish when we feel like it and British when it suits us.

In terms of sporting competition that represents a form of unfairness which, one way or another, we ought to be putting right today in letting the world see whether the settled will of Scottish residents is that this is a country or a province.