What’s so bad about division anyway? I thought that those who want Westminster to rule Scotland would positively revel in it. In the House of Commons there are divisions practically every time it sits. There are divisions so often there that they even have a specially named bell for the purpose, to give advance warning of them happening.

If I had a pound for every time someone mentioned division in today’s Scottish Parliament debate on a new independence referendum I’d have quite a lot of soon to be next to worthless metal coinage. Sterling will slump again at the end of the month as Article 50 is triggered and again at the end of a two year period Brexit negotiation which will end in a disastrous “no deal” scenario.

The serried ranks, or divisions if you will, of the Conservative and Unionist Party and the smaller ranks of the Labour and Unionist Party, as they must surely now be called, brayed and hollered every time one of their colleagues mentioned division today. Indeed Ruth Divisionson made it truly sound like the nuclear option, like we were proposing dividing the atom, not merely re-forming into two modern parliamentary systems of democracy which already have most of the groundwork in place.

Division can be a positive thing, division of assets, i.e. making sure everyone has the correct share. Division of labour – well ok they are divided enough, maybe that is a sore point for them…

Division and disagreement are the very essence of politics. That doesn’t have to suggest rancour, the way the anti-independence parties try to portray it. Their sense of bitter division is fuelled by the fear of having to defend a position that belongs to the past, one that has the hands of history firmly on it’s shoulders, pulling it backward into the musty pages of it’s dusty old tomes. There are new books to be written, for new times ahead and I wonder how many of the big names of today will be other than a footnote in them.