During the Referendum campaign, it always seemed to me that one of the stranger points for discussion - utilised by both sides - was the level of 'difference' between Scotland and England - as if proof of 'difference', or otherwise, was a major motivator in the independence vote.

"Better Together", naturally, pointed out "300 years of shared history and culture" and found polls which suggested the Scots weren't as 'separate' on issues like the EU, social welfare, and immigration as they liked to think they were. That we were 'similar' seemed to be an important argument to their case - as if a shared love of the Beatles and Coronation St negated the argument for independence.

The Yes Campaign indicated electoral evidence for different polling patterns, and referred to 700 years of national independence prior to the Union.

The reality is, with shared borders and political history, it would be odd if there were not many attitudes and issues shared by the two countries. However, the same could be said of the Benelux or Scandinavian states and we seldom hear suggestions that they would be "better together" - and, despite, their similarities, nobody suggests the USA and Canada should just throw in their lot with each other.

Geography and history does suggest that England and Scotland will agree on many issues and have similar needs in many areas. Nobody disputes that. Again, to examine international relationships in Europe, and indeed between the UK and the Irish Republic, is to understand that neighbouring, self governing, countries have no problem in cooperation to their mutual advantage.

However, politics and economics tell us that changing conditions in different countries will mean that the needs and wishes of their voters may change over time: decisions which may have been mutually beneficial will become disadvantageous to one or other of the countries at different stages in history.

It is the ability to take cognizance of this, the flexibility and power to reflect the wishes and the needs of the electorate, and act in the country's best interests, which leads to the requirement, indeed the commonsense, of independence.

Whether the 'differences' are major or minimal, it is the ability to react to them which underpins the need for democratic government in these islands. We see it in already devolved areas like Law, Health and Education - where the views of the voters are quite clear, irrespective of the party in control at Holyrood, but can be stymied by Westminster's economic decisions. It is obvious, too, in Scotland's invisibility in international affairs.

We see the need for it in "Scottish" issues such as fishing, the oil industry and agriculture, where the tail of five million Scots, understandably, is unable to wag the 60 million who make up the Westminster dog. It is an argument, indeed, coherently made for the regions of England to have devolved power to fight the draw of Londoncentric economics. The 'difference' here, of course, is that Scotland is a country with a right to an independent government - though any future self determination must surely include strong devolution within Scotland itself.

The irony seems to be that, in the wake of the Referendum, it appears that there may, after all, be important and self evident differences between the two countries.

Where people feel detached from the political process, or marginalised, there are a number of possible reactions: apathy, protest, anger or organisation.

At present, it seems like Scotland has become politically organised - with a surge in membership of the SNP and Greens, and continuing "Yes" activity. South of the Border, given voter turnout and UKIP successes, the mood seems to be more one of apathy and protest.

It's too early to say, of course, whether the party political membership surge will turn into sustained activity - or indeed whether UKIP's Indian Summer will be maintained through the arctic blast of a full on General Election campaign.

Diversity, which seemed to feature strongly in the Yes Campaign, brings strength and renewal. Two democratically governed nations on our island would be a positive change for the better (and solve the problem of English Votes for English Laws!)

As our French neighbours have been wont to say: "Vive la Difference!"