Scottish independence and the narcissism of small differences

From Networks and Hierarchies by Niall Ferguson.

In the networked world, the danger is not popular insurrection but indifference; the political challenge is not to withstand popular anger but to transmit any kind of signal through the noise. What can focus us, albeit briefly, on the tiresome business of how we are governed or, at least, by whom? When we speak of “populism” today, we mean simply a politics that is audible as well as intelligible to the man in the street. Not that the man in the street is actually in the street. Far more likely, he is the man slumped on his sofa, his attention skipping fitfully from television to laptop to tablet to smartphone and back to television. And what gets his attention? The end of history? The clash of civilizations? The answer turns out to be the narcissism of small differences.

Tyler Cowen has a post, Charlie Stross unintentionally explains why Scottish independence is a bad idea by Tyler Cowen in which he observes the shallowness of the Scottish Independence case and it reminds me of Fergusson's narcissim of small differences.

But my view remains pretty straightforward: when dislike of the policy choices of the electorate leads to a serious movement for secession, something has gone deeply wrong with the preconditions for democratic attachment. The UK is hardly the Third Reich, it has a long tradition of honest elections, and for left-leaning individuals the share of British government in gdp is likely to stay well over 40% in all plausible futures and furthermore most of the conservatives are relatively liberal on social questions. For those who favor independence for the Scots, what kind of general principle might you lay out for when other peoples also should seek secession? Do they think that the strongly red states in America also should consider secession? How about Vermont? I understand the libertarian case for such secessions, but most supporters of Scottish independence are not arguing from libertarian premises. How much secession do they think should be happening? Or do they hold particularist views which do not admit of any generalization at all? Either way, I consider this a true crisis of governance.