NICOLA Sturgeon hit a raw nerve with at least one political columnist last week when she expressed the opinion that Brexit was “at odds with Scottish values”. Most people, I suspect, no matter where they stand on Brexit or Scottish independence, would not have batted an eyelid at what was a fairly bland remark. But not so Mark Smith of The Herald, who found the reference to Scottish values “infuriating”.

Ideals such as fairness, internationalism and equality are not “uniquely Scottish” he wrote.

Some Scots voted for Brexit, he pointed out. And some don’t believe in equality. But nowhere in her speech did the First Minister suggest Scotland has a monopoly on these values. Nor did she pretend that Scotland is 100% unified in its attitudes and values. Why would she make such an absurd claim? But for Smith, the reference to Scottish values was a nationalist ploy to emphasise differences rather than similarities. Next thing, he suggested, nationalists would be demanding Scottish values and national pride should be drummed into our kids at school in order to weed out Unionists at an early age. It was, let’s put it gently, a bit of an over-reaction.

As it happens, I’m not too comfortable either when I hear politicians talking about national values. But it is entirely wrong to pretend that such language is the sole province of “nationalists” and “separatists”. In fact, over the past couple of decades, those who have been most voluble by far in promoting national values have been supporters of the United Kingdom. “We are a united people, dedicated to our shared British values of freedom, of democracy, of human rights,” said Theresa May in a pro-Union speech in Edinburgh during the last General Election.

The manifesto of the Scottish Conservatives at the last Holyrood election declared: “We will continue to champion British values around the globe: freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law.”

Gordon Brown has rarely stopped talking about “British values” for the past decade. During the 2014 independence referendum campaign he said: “British values include inventiveness, fairness, charity, resilience and a ‘mustn’t grumble’ attitude”, and proposed that Britain should have an annual day devoted to celebrating its national identity.

The former chancellor and prime minister has even written a book called Being British: The Search for the Values that Bind a Nation. His old sparring partner Tony Blair has gushed about the “qualities of British identity” which are about “creativity built on tolerance, openness and adaptability, work and self-improvement, strong communities and families, and fair play, rights and responsibilities”.

These speeches and writings on British values – and many, many more – were reported uncritically by most of the Scottish and UK media. Yet let a pro-independence figure dare suggest there might be such a thing as Scottish values and we’re halfway down the slippery slope to tartan fascism.

While there is clearly no such thing as a national consensus in Scotland, or anywhere else for that matter, it is equally absurd to deny there are divergent attitudes across the United Kingdom that have been shaped by a multitude of factors.

It is a fact that at the high tide of Thatcherism in 1987, the Tories won almost twice as many votes as Labour in that vast area of England from the north of the Midlands right down to the English Channel. In Scotland, Thatcher’s party failed to muster even a quarter of the vote. Call it what you will, but the dominant political culture in Scotland has, since the 1980s, and further back in history, been vastly different from the dominant political culture across the south of England.

No national or regional identity is fixed in stone. It can change. London, with its great influxes of people from across Europe and the wider world, is an even more cosmopolitan city than it was in the 1980s. Parts of the north of England, which was generally anti-Thatcher, were so severely neglected by the metropolitan elites in charge of New Labour that an older section of the working class has become politically disoriented, with an absolute majority in the north-east England constituency backing the three right-wing parties at the recent European election. That would have been unthinkable not so long ago. But even within the north of England there is political diversity, which is based not just on class but on underlying culture. Last week, I visited the great city of Liverpool for the first time, and in the space of a couple of days was struck by how different this place is from the rest of England. I saw very few Union Jacks or St George’s Crosses on display but plenty a of Irish tricolours and European Union flags. Many Scousers don’t really feel English or even British.

And that’s because of the history of the city, which in the past was a melting pot for famine migrants from Ireland, slaves from Africa, seafarers from China, persecuted Jews from eastern Europe, and people fleeing rural poverty in Wales, Lancashire and Scotland. Historically one of the biggest ports in the world, it was shaped by its maritime history, its seven and half miles stretch of docklands a great international gateway to the big wide world. In contrast to the old mill towns of Lancashire and the former mining villages of Yorkshire, the people of Liverpool voted resoundingly to remain in the EU.

More than ever before, Britain is a fragmented multinational state, which includes within its borders a diverse multitude of national, regional, cultural, linguistic and ethnic identities. Yes, we have a lot in common too. That’s great. But we shouldn’t fear difference. Difference only becomes a problem when people seek to eradicate it.

I’m an internationalist. But my internationalism is about co-operation, not about regimentation. It is about encouraging diversity, not about imposing grey uniformity. It’s about decentralising our powers structures, not about subordinating the smaller unit to the larger. And when it comes to Scotland, it’s about having the right to decide our own political and economic future to better reflect the wishes of most of our people. It’s not complicated. It’s not sinister. And if it’s divisive, that’s because some people disagree, which they’re perfectly entitled to do.