IT was only a matter of “who” and not “whether” an SNP luminary would find some crass analogy in Ukraine’s awful plight in order to promote their own political agenda.

Even against that dismal level of expectation, Michelle Thomson – an MSP and former MP – excelled herself. How anyone in their right mind could open a tweet with the words “Delighted for Ukraine” in current circumstances is beyond comprehension.

The tedious point which Ms Thomson was trying to make was that Ukraine, as the tanks rolled towards Kiev, was applying to join the EU. “"It just goes to show what political will can achieve. Remember this Scotland!”, she tweeted happily, doubtless delighted with her own cleverness.

After three hours, Ms Thomson was prevailed upon to delete the tweet which had attracted hundreds of “likes”. If it had stayed longer, the numbers would have swelled – for Scotland has a very hard core of equally one-dimensional zealots for whom every crisis creates an opportunity to trumpet the only cause that turns them on.

READ MORE: Does Russia’s Ukraine attack sink world’s net-zero dream?

The idea there is any analogy between Scotland’s relationship with the United Kingdom and Ukraine’s with Russia is bizarre. That is not, however, a view shared by those who have convinced themselves that we too are subject to some form of subjugation. Maybe Ms Thomson and her admirers should now pause to reconsider the meaning of that word.

However, there is a wider truth and it is that all such analogies, from whichever quarter, are pretty foolish. History has created a complex web of large states, small states, nations, federations, regions and every combination imaginable. Trying to extrapolate any success or failure of one in order to apply a constitutional lesson to another is a fool’s errand.

All the large countries of Europe are made up of nations which, at various points in history, have come together to form states. There is nothing exceptional about Scotland’s status as a nation within the state. Equally, there are nations which have remained as small states. The deception is to pretend that the latter is the “norm” while the former is an abnormality to be corrected.

Indeed, Ukraine illustrates the point that secession is a complicated business. Ukraine is a big state, 44 million people and larger in territory than France. There are, as we know too well, minorities fighting to break away from it. Arguing the rights and wrongs of these ambitions on the basis of a “right to self-determination” leads to contradictions, not definitive conclusions.

Far better, I think, to argue each case – if we must argue it at all – on its own merits, without reference to false or cherry-picked analogies. Personally, I have never been attracted by the idea that we could “be like Norway”. I would much rather be like Tuscany (culturally) or Bavaria (economically). Others will take the diametrically opposite view, which is their perfect entitlement. Just don’t pretend that unity is an inferior ethic or equates to subjugation.

That was Ms Thomson’s message in a particularly crude and unsubtle form but it is also one to which those of us who do not want to create a border within a small island are bombarded. Wishing to maintain the constitutional status quo has nothing to do with “unionism” as a creed but simply recognises the state we live in and have no wish to dismantle – any more than the vast majority of our European counterparts.

The problem with a mindset that one model is good and another bad is that we end up learning from neither. It never ceases to surprise me how little effort is made in Scotland to learn lessons from success stories around Europe and try to apply them to our own circumstances. For example, we could learn a lot from Scandinavia about how to treat peripheral communities. Equally, we could learn a lot from France about how to regenerate post-industrial areas. Instead, we don’t seem interested in learning from anywhere except through superficial constitutional analogy.

Michelle Thomson was not alone. Predictably, my own MP, Angus Brendan MacNeil, joined the bandwagon based on a claim that relatives were being prevented from joining Ukrainians in the Hebrides by “lack of clarity” from the Home Office. He then found it necessary to add: “Times like this, independence would allow us to decide these things ourselves”.

In the midst of suffering, there is always opportunity for opportunists. I remember when a diligent MP would just get on with solving such a problem for needful constituents without linking it to an unrelated political ambition. Or is there anything in these people’s minds that does not revolve round that single objective, to which everything and everyone else is the merest pawn?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.